Posts tagged as:

Rhonda Holman

Wichita downtown arena parking problem

by Bob Weeks on August 8, 2009

This week the Wichita Eagle printed a letter submitted by Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn. The printed letter is quite a bit shorter than what Peterjohn submitted. The unabridged letter follows.

The Wichita Eagle editorial written by Rhonda Holman on June 29, 2009 now claims that the new Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita lacks adequate parking. This is a major change by the Eagle editorial board’s position. I have repeatedly asked county staff about the available parking in and around this soon-to-open facility since I became a commissioner in January. I have been repeatedly told by county staff that adequate parking will be available when the Intrust Arena opens next year. The most recent public assurance I have received was only a few days ago.

In 2004, while I led the opposition to the proposed downtown arena in my role as the executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, I repeatedly raised the parking availability issue. In 2004 the arena advocates claimed that arena parking would not become a problem and that the critics were wrong.

Voters were repeatedly assured that there was plenty of parking that would be available downtown for the arena. The Wichita Eagle editorial page was among the leading advocates for this project and ignored opponents arguments concerning this $206 million (back then it was described as a $185 million) project. At that time there was only a general area for this new facility’s location so this argument lacked specificity. The exact location was unknown when voters cast their ballots.

The Friday before the 2004 election I held a news conference pointing out the dimensions of the parking problem downtown in particular and the related location and capacity issues in great detail. At this news conference I provided a map of the Kansas Coliseum’s Britt Brown Arena and adjacent parking area available for comparison purposes with the existing 3,500 parking spaces for this 12,000 seat facility along I-135. I still have a few extra copies of this Britt Brown Arena aerial view. Arena proponents attended this 2004 news conference and claimed that the arena opponents concerns were invalid because of existing downtown parking. The Eagle editorial page repeatedly backed these arena proponents’ claims.

The 2004 election is now political history. I want the Intrust Arena to be a success because this project has now become very important to the entire community. The reservations I expressed in 2004 have not disappeared just because of time. The decision to eliminate some of the one-way streets with two-way streets will not be an improvement in traffic flow in my opinion. There will be challenges for people to become comfortable with access into and out of this new facility while participating in high attendance events when the arena opens in a few months. To get beyond this challenge for any new facility, the county staff and parking consultant need to be correct about the adequacy of parking for the Intrust Arena and I believe are working to accomplish this objective.

{ 2 comments }

Wichita Eagle’s school cheerleading isn’t helpful

by Bob Weeks on June 29, 2009

in Wichita and Kansas schools

Now that Mark McCormick is no longer with the Wichita Eagle, I think we can say that Rhonda Holman has taken over the role of chief cheerleader for USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

Not that she needed much of a push in that direction. But claims made in a recent opinion piece of hers (Hard times forcing hard choices) deserve some examination.

After praising President Obama’s stimulus spending — claiming that it will keep things from becoming worse — she writes this: “And thank goodness that school district voters had the foresight in November to approve a well-timed local economic stimulus plan — the $370 million bond issue for athletics and fine arts facilities, technical education and new schools.”

There’s so many untruths in this statement that it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s try.

First, did the school district know that we’d be in a recession this year? If so, they foresaw something that no one else did.

Second, does government spending stimulate anything except the school system? It’s true that there will be spending going on that probably wouldn’t have happened had the bond issue not passed. But right now Wichitans pay millions of dollars each year to retire the bonds from a past school bond, and soon we’ll have to start paying for this bond. These payments are a drag on the local economy. See Wichita school bond issue economic fallacy and Wichita school district economic impact for more.

The future tax burden is worse than the Wichita school district would admit to, and Holman doesn’t either. That’s because besides the capital expense of building new schools and more classrooms, there’s the ongoing cost of running the new classrooms. The bond issue doesn’t pay those expenses. Wichitans can expect the school district to propose tax increases as these new classrooms and schools come online.

Third, if we were getting something truly worthwhile from this extra spending, that might be one thing. But the Wichita school district’s goal — smaller class sizes — is not a goal worth pursuing. Well, it is if you’re part of the public school bureaucracy or the teachers union. But the narrow self-interest of these groups shouldn’t count in this debate.

If you’re interested in improving the prospects of Wichita’s schoolchildren, this extra spending is a distraction.

I wonder if Holman has read research like this: “Surprisingly, the data show that academic achievement cannot be accounted for by any of the measures of public investment used in this study (pupil-teacher ratio, per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries, and funds received from the federal government), either singly or as a blend.” It’s in the post Wichita-area school superintendents make flawed case.

Here’s some reporting by Malcolm Gladwell on what education researches are starting to realize about the effectiveness of class size, one of the goals of the bond issue:

What’s more — and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world — the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast. … Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You’d have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you’d get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers.

That’s reported in my post Wichita public school district’s path: not fruitful. In that post, you can also read that the current ways that teachers can advance their careers and salaries (longevity and obtaining extra education) aren’t relevant to their teaching effectiveness:

The problem is that the current standards for teachers don’t “track what we care about.” The path to increased pay as a teacher — longevity and more education credentials — doesn’t produce better teachers. But because of union contracts that govern pay, that’s the only way to earn more as a teacher. This is one of the reasons why teachers unions are harmful to schools.

Yet according to the contract with the teachers union in Wichita, longevity and more education credentials are the ways to earn a higher salary.

Innovations such as differential teacher pay and charter schools are being promoted by President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan as a way to improve our nation’s schools. But in Wichita, the existing public education bureaucracy and teachers unions are firmly opposed to these reforms. It’s too bad we don’t have opinion writers at the Wichita Eagle who are willing to look past these entrenched interests and consider what’s best for Wichita schoolchildren.

{ 1 comment }

Sedgwick County solid waste fee criticized

by Bob Weeks on June 19, 2009

in Sedgwick county government

Today’s Wichita Eagle column by Rhonda Holman is a two-fer. Two issues for the price of one column, and two issues she’s wrong on. The first issue is explained in Wichita water economics.

She criticizes Commissioner Karl Peterjohn and Board Chairman Kelly Parks for the opposition of a solid waste management fee that would add a relatively small amount to property tax bills.

(When writing about Peterjohn, do I need to disclose that he and I are friends, and that I helped manage his campaign last year? I’d feel more compelled to do so if Holman would start writing editorials using her entire name.)

Holman pokes fun at Peterjohn and Parks for “operating on anti-tax autopilot” and at Peterjohn specifically for fulfilling a campaign pledge.

Anti-tax ought to be the first instinct of politicians. To me, that’s axiomatic and not a basis for criticism. There are always plenty of people in government like Commissioner Dave Unruh who are nuanced enough to recognize — as Holman reports — “with an admirable lack of exasperation: ‘It’s 69 cents.’”

The problem is that little amounts here and there add up to real money. I think that’s something like the argument Wichita City Council members used in rejecting a $2.00 per month increase in water and sewer bills. Holman supported that action.

Then, keeping a campaign pledge — what a novel concept! How refreshing!

We should also look at the public policy aspects of this waste management fee. One of the things it was used for is to fund a Christmas tree recycling program. Here’s a few questions: Is it wise economics to fund recycling projects? Specifically, if natural Christmas trees as such an environmental nuisance that they must be recycled, shouldn’t people who buy them pay for their recycling? Perhaps through a tax — wait, let’s call it a “surcharge” or a “pre-paid environmental mitigation fee” — levied at the corner tree lot?

Here are comments left to this post that were lost and then reconstructed:

Wichitatator: What is Rhonda Holman’s legal name? Why doesn’t she use it when she signs her editorials? The Eagle should not have mystery editorial writers without fully disclosing this salient fact.

Ms. “Holman” could be married to an attorney who is suing the state over school finance or some other public issue. Ms. “Holman” is a public person who wants to enjoy the perks of her editorial position in influencing public policy in this community without assuming the responsibility of publicly disclosing her name.

For an editorial board that regularly fulminates about “full disclosure” this is an odd position to take. The Eagle regularly criticizes folks who do not fully disclose a lot more than their names in their paper.

LonnythePlumber: What is her entire name? You imply mystery and wrong motivation if revealed.

{ 3 comments }

Wichita water economics

by Bob Weeks on June 19, 2009

in Wichita city government

This week the Wichita City Council declined to raise the fixed portion of customers water bills by $2.00 per month. Today, Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman praises the council for avoiding an illogical water-rate increase. Is she and the city council right on this matter?

The problem Wichita faces lies in the cost structure of water treatment and delivery. One source estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of a city’s water supply system were fixed, or quasi-fixed, costs.

These fixed costs don’t vary with the amount of water demanded by customers, at least not in the short run. But the city charges for water based primarily on the amount that customers use. So when demand is low, revenue drops rapidly, but the water department’s costs decrease very little. That’s the source of the problem.

There is a fixed component to customer’s water bills. One solution would be to increase that fixed charge and drop the cost of a gallon of water. That would make the water department’s revenue less variable. This pricing formula would more accurately reflect the department’s cost structure.

In retrospect, it appears that the city’s campaign to get people to conserve water has been, to put it kindly, a waste of resources. We’ve conserved — although nature has been the primary force behind this — but we still have to pay. Just because the city council doesn’t want to raise water bills now, someone is still going to have to pay.

The water department is in control of its fixed costs over the long term, however. The growing demand for water over the long term is what leads it to make capital investment in its plant. Paying for these projects (fixed costs) by relying on revenue from the usage of water (variable revenue), as we now see, is problematic. The solution is to realize that these capital investments are not driven by daily or even yearly usage. Customers should pay for these capital improvements, then, through a fixed charge.

An alternative would be to charge new connections to the water system a fee that helps pay for the capital investment necessary to expand the water supply. As a matter of fact, the department charges a “Water Plant Equity Fee” just for this purpose. Currently this fee is $1,520. (This is in addition to a fee of $850 for tapping into a water main and installing a meter.) Perhaps the equity fee needs to be raised.

It appears that it is the desire of the city council to pay for capital improvements to the water system through a way other than raising the fixed portion of water bills. The net effect, whatever the city does, will still be felt by citizens as an increase in the cost of providing water. It would be best if this cost was realized as close as possible to its source, which is the water bill.

Hopefully the city council will do something to recognize this, regardless of whether Rhonda Holman will support them.

Here are comments left to this post that were lost and then reconstructed:

Charlotte: You don’t fully understand. The city water dept. needs this money coming in to pay for their ASR project–which is located up by Burrton along the Arkansas River. They did one part of the project and now they want to do more. ASR, Aquafier S—? Recovery is taking the dirty water out of the Arkansas River when it gets up after a rain, running it through a big above ground filter that creates sludge (which they sell) and then pumping that (supposedly clean water) down into the Halstead Equas Bed. I am not thoroughly convinced that the water they are putting into the clean Equas Bed is all that clean. They say we are drawing water out of the Equas Bed faster than this ASR is putting it back in. They say the city needs to do this for economic development.

I replied that the aquifer recharge project is an example of the type of capital improvements to plant that I was referring to.

{ 0 comments }

Share in the green-energy boom and quit fighting

by Bob Weeks on April 15, 2009

in Environment

Share in the green-energy boom. That’s the title of Rhonda Holman’s editorial in Sunday’s Wichita Eagle.

It’s backed up in today’s paper by Enough fighting over coal plants. This editorial is notable for a few points.

Holman makes an argument against the plants by noting that it’s likely that the Obama administration will impose regulation or taxation of these plants. But these plans are unwise and will harm the American economy. Hopefully the Omaba administration will realize this.

She says the plants will stick “the state with all 11 million tons of carbon dioxide.” If carbon emissions are a problem, it’s because of its contribution to global warming or climate change. It doesn’t matter where the carbon dioxide is produced. Its effect is the same.

In this argument, she treats carbon emissions as though they were local pollutants. Coal plants do produce these, but they’ve been greatly reduced through technology. Further, local pollutants are of entirely different character from carbon emissions.

Readers of the Wichita Eagle should be asking if Holman doesn’t know this, or if she does know it, why does she say these things?

It’s a good question. Facts are sometimes in short supply among radical environmentalists.

But the precise content of these editorials is not as important as the premises they’re based on. These are that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to save the planet, and that we can create a lot of jobs and wealth by doing so.

The science behind global warming is not at all settled. See Global Warming Rope-a-Dope for an example.

As far as green jobs producing wealth, my post Green energy policies causing harm in Europe reports how green jobs in Spain end up costing $774,000 each.

In Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs, read about a study that concludes “lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives.”

We need to base Kansas energy policy on facts and reason.

{ 1 comment }

Wichita Eagle editorial page calls for more government at all levels

by Bob Weeks on April 12, 2009

in Wichita news media

Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial and opinion page is chock full of plans for more government programs, regulations, taxes, and intervention.

Rhonda Holman’s editorial calls for more government involvement in setting energy policy so that Kansas can share in the “green-energy boom.” Readers of this blog know that government involvement in energy policy will only lead to disaster. It will lead to more taxes and more government programs, so maybe that’s why Holman is in favor of programs like this.

Jeff Fluhr of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — itself a taxpayer-funded organization — calls for planning to ensure the success of downtown Wichita. How are these plans to be developed and enforced? Through government, of course. Then, he tries to avoid the “T-word” by using euphemisms like “strategic public investment.” But how does the public “invest” in something except through taxation?

A featured letter calls for the city to build more swimming pools.

In the regular letter section, one writer calls for national health care, just like we have national defense.

Another uses the way that injured birds are cared for by the Kansas Raptor Center to advocate that the government care for young and injured people the same way.

A former state representative makes the case for more government regulation of political speech.

Then, to make sure the point is made as clear as possible, a writer who lived through the Great Depression praises Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policies.

Maybe this big-government stance of the Wichita Eagle editorial page is one of the reasons fewer people are reading it.

{ 9 comments }

Wichita school board members should not be re-elected

by Bob Weeks on April 3, 2009

in Wichita and Kansas schools

Next Tuesday, four members of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, seek to be elected again to their current posts.

These members — Lanora Nolan, Lynn Rogers, Connie Dietz and Betty Arnold — are part of a board and school district that is increasingly out-of-step with education reforms that are working in other parts of the country. Their policies and actions are harmful to both Wichita schoolchildren and Wichita taxpayers.

At the time when most of the country is starting to realize that quality teachers, not the number of teachers, is what makes the biggest difference in student outcomes, the Wichita school district is going the wrong way. The bond issue, with its focus on reducing class size, will force the district to hire more teachers. This makes it more likely that schoolchildren in Wichita will be taught by poorly-performing teachers.

Its contract with its teachers union forbids any type of merit pay that might induce the best teachers to stay in teaching. Instead, all teachers are paid the same. Only length of service and extra education credentials allow teachers to earn more. Now researchers have found that length of service and the credentials earned at university schools of education make very little difference in student outcomes.

Across the country parents can take advantage of school choices programs such as charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits. These programs give parents — instead of school administrators and politicians — choice as to where to send their children to school. In some cases, they allow parents to decide how their own tax dollars should be spent. The Wichita school district, including its board and the incumbent candidates that stand for election next week, are firmly against these type of programs that have benefited many students and parents. They prefer a government monopoly.

The Wichita school district and its board are miles behind other school districts and governmental agencies regarding transparency and openness. Its recent search for a new superintendent was conducted in such a secretive manner that even the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman — one of the district’s several apologists at that newspaper — was critical.

The district and board’s attitude towards citizens is nothing less than hostile. In particular, board member, now board president, Lynn Rogers has told citizens that records requests are a burden to the district. When citizens ask for evidence of claims the district makes, Rogers advises them to use Google to look things up for themselves.

The board gets even little things wrong. For example, the board’s agenda that’s posted on the USD 259 website holds appendixes, which are usually attached files that hold additional information such as a Powerpoint presentation. But these files are removed quickly after the meeting. Most governmental agencies leave them available for eternity.

Three board members, in their joint campaign materials, state they are proud of 11 years of rising test scores. Across the country school districts and states have watered-down testing standards in response to political pressure to produce rising test scores. Is this the case in Wichita and Kansas? We don’t know. But as scores rise on tests administered by the state, they remain unchanged on the national tests that are immune from local political pressures.

The fact that all of the candidates facing election challenges have advertised jointly is evidence of another severe problem on the Wichita board of education: Rarely is there controversy or evidence of independent thought by board members. Consider the bond issue from last year, which passed narrowly (51 percent to 49 percent) when voted on by the public. Board members were unanimous in their support of the bond issue. What are the odds of that? (Well, board member Jeff Davis initially dissented, but only because he thought his district didn’t get its fair share. His straying from the board’s groupthink mentality was short-lived, however, as at the next meeting he changed his vote.)

Then there’s the bond issue from last year. One analysis found that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, came from contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction. The board rewarded Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture for its efforts in passing the bond issue with a no-bid $3.7 million contract to manage the bond issue.

As large as the bond issue is, to board members it’s not enough. Board members started with a list of projects that totaled some $550 million. These projects are on the back burner, and as soon as this board senses the time is right, it will propose another bond issue. Count on it.

We should remember the board’s conduct during the election. Calling a special election to be held in May, the board delayed it when it appeared the political landscape was not in their favor — after their opponents had mobilized and spent resources. The board appeared to rely on a hapless citizen group during the summer months for recommendations. Despite the district’s denials, huge amounts of district resources, all provided by taxpayers, were used to promote the bond issue.

This Wichita school district and its board is an institution firmly rooted in and preferring a big-government style of education monopoly. It ignores evidence of reforms that work, preferring to remain beholden to special interests such as the teachers union, education bureaucrats, and firms that benefit from school construction. None of its members deserve re-election.

{ 3 comments }

Articles of Interest

by Bob Weeks on March 27, 2009

in Politics

Wichita real estate development, redistricting, newspapers, free markets

Wichita developer plans to turn old school into apartments (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) All that’s missing from this story is the developer’s propensity to seek subsidy, that is, a handout from government. We’ll have to wait to see how that develops.

Longtime Wichita developer George Ablah may be forced to shut down (Wichita Business Journal, a subscription service) “George Ablah says the economic downturn could force him to soon shut down his commercial real estate business. Ablah, who celebrated his 80th birthday Tuesday, estimates he has purchased and developed $2 billion of property … Now he wonders how much longer Ablah Enterprises can continue, given the current market conditions and a presidential administration that he says is crippling his business.”

Rethink redistricting in Kansas (Rhonda Holman in the Wichita Eagle) A cure for the problem Holman discusses in this editorial is term limits. But in the past she’s written: “Term limits are a dumb, artificial device that ends up throwing out the good leaders along with the bad and tends to fill governing bodies with novices who are easy prey for lobbyists.”

Editor’s message about changes at the Monitor (Christian Science Monitor) Today is the last daily printed edition of the Christian Science Monitor, although there will be a weekly print edition. I wonder if this newspaper’s reporters could get press credentials at the Kansas Capitol? I was told that because the Voice For Liberty in Wichita doesn’t print on paper, my application for credentials would not be considered.

The Miraculous Market (A speech by Leonard E. Read from 1965) “Awakening during the night, I flicked a bedside switch and soon the room was flooded with a piano concerto composed by Johannes Brahms. Perhaps the music itself induced a reflective mood: how explain this wonder of wonders for my enjoyment and with a near imperceptible effort on my part?” (Back in 1965 there were no IPods, CDs, and stereo was a recent invention.) As our country appears to be moving away from free markets to more government control — be it at the federal level, at the Kansas statehouse, or in Wichita city hall — we need be aware of the tremendous innovation that markets inspire in man.

{ 1 comment }

Articles of Interest

by Bob Weeks on March 22, 2009

in Politics

Education reform, downtown Wichita arena, Kansas smoking ban, downtown developers

Education’s Ground Zero (Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times) Describes the efforts of Washington D.C. public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to reform the system. She’s fired one-third of the principals. Kristof reminds us of the importance of teachers: “The reform camp is driven partly by research suggesting that great teachers are far more important to student learning than class size, school resources or anything else. One study suggests that if black kids could get teachers from the profession’s most effective quartile for four years in a row, the achievement gap would disappear.” In Wichita, however, USD 259 is taking the opposite approach.

Intrust Bank Arena management contract unusual, but not necessarily bad (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) Explores the nature of the arrangement between Sedgwick County and SMG as compared to other arenas. “The bottom line for these officials: Sedgwick County has a good deal with SMG, but has a responsibility to closely monitor the arena’s performance for taxpayers who paid for the building with a sales tax increase.” More coverage of related issues is Wichita downtown arena contract seems to require Sedgwick County approval.

Details of Intrust Bank Arena contract with Thunder are a secret (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) This is an earlier story, interesting for the confusion it raises or exposes, I’m not sure which. Reported in the story: “The arena’s financial performance would be monitored by the county through what [Sedgwick County assistant manager Ron] Holt characterized as limited records access. But [Sedgwick County Commissioner Gwen] Welshimer said she didn’t know how the county would track the arena’s financial performance. ‘We don’t have any access to their books that I know of,’ she said.” Read the county’s contract with SMG, however, and you learn that SMG will maintain accounting records, have them audited, and give Sedgwick County access to them “upon reasonable advance notice.” Also, the county has the right to audit the records at any time.

Why state smoking ban seems inevitable Rhonda Holman in the Wichita Eagle Editorial Blog) In this post, Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman makes explicit the connection between state-paid health care and the state’s interest in controlling behavior: “That’s [passing the statewide smoking ban] the only responsible action the Legislature can take, given the increasing cost burden of smoking-related illnesses on the state …” If the state (that includes the U.S. Federal government) starts taking responsibility for more health care, smoking bans are just the start of state meddling in behavior.

Minnesota Guys ready to start face-lifts of downtown Wichita buildings (Bill Wilson in Wichita Eagle) Real Development starts work on the improvement of facades of some of its buildings. In the article developer Michael Elzufon manages to use the word “iconic” twice. This article doesn’t tell how these improvements are paid for: a confusing arrangement where the city loans money and recoups it in special assessment taxes. A hefty development fee is being paid to the developers, which allows them to profit for fixing up their own buildings. But they’ll pay that back in the form of the special taxes — or will they? It’s hard to tell where the money is going in these agreements. This benefits developers like Elzufon and politicians on the Wichita city council, as if citizens knew what was really going on, they wouldn’t be happy.

{ 2 comments }

Editorial Board Pen Names at the Wichita Eagle

by Bob Weeks on February 27, 2009

in Wichita Eagle opinion watch

Some comment-writers to this blog make very good points that deserve more visibility. This is the case with the following comment left anonymously to the post In Wichita, let’s disclose everything. I mean everything.

It looks like Wichita Liberty has broken another unreported story and has exposed the fact that a portion of the Wichita Eagle’s editorial board operates under a pen name.

Perhaps “Ms. Holman’s” editorials should be placed next to the equally anonymous opinion line comments. I must note that the anonymous comments appearing in the Eagle are usually much more pointed than the signed editorial commentary.

I wonder how conflicts of interest by employees and their families are handled by the newspaper? If “Ms. Holman” was married to a school administrator that might be a very useful fact to know when evaluating her credibility on government school spending issues.

What if she was married to an attorney involved in suing the state over school finance? Full disclosure can lead into a number of interesting places.

There was very little publicity provided to the very salient fact that the Wichita Eagle was a donor to the group backing the 2000 Wichita school bond issue with a sizable donation. I’ll have to ask Wichita Liberty to look into any news media contributions to either side of the 2008 Wichita school bond issue campaign.

In response to the question posed at the end of this comment: The campaign finance report for groups involved on both sides of the Wichita school bond issue in 2008 showed no contribution by the Wichita Eagle.

Is this issue of Rhonda Holman not using her real name a substantive issue? My name was in the Wichita Eagle quite a few times last year in my role as an opponent of the Wichita school bond issue. What would have been the Eagle’s response — in both the newsroom and editorial board offices — if I had used a pen name? What would the use of an assumed name indicated about my willingness to be held accountable for the things I said and wrote?

{ 0 comments }

In Wichita, let’s disclose everything. I mean everything.

by Bob Weeks on February 23, 2009

in Wichita news media

A follow-up post is at at Editorial Board Pen Names at the Wichita Eagle.

In an Wichita Eagle Editorial Blog post, Rhonda Holman calls for more disclosure for groups that send mailings that “dodge campaign finance disclosure law by deftly telling people how to vote without using the words ‘vote for’ or ‘vote against.’” (Treat campaign ads the same)

A few points:

Holman’s target is quite selective. As shown in my post On the Wichita Eagle Editorial Board, Partisanship Reigns from right before last election day, she’s willing to overlook the Eagle’s own political contributions and the use of taxpayer money to fund election campaigns when she agrees with the causes.

And, why the need for a law when, as Holman writes “Kansans aren’t fooled by the ads and mailings”?

Then, wouldn’t a lot of Wichita Eagle readers like to know some of the financial details behind the Eagle’s political endorsements, say perhaps Holman’s salary? Heck, I’d be satisfied if she’d start using her real — or should I say entire — name when making political endorsements.

{ 7 comments }

Should Wichita Identify Superintendent Finalists?

by Bob Weeks on February 19, 2009

in Wichita and Kansas schools

When USD 259, the Wichita public school district, draws criticism from the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, you know they’ve really done something wrong.

Her column of today (Identify finalists for superintendent) requests that the Wichita school district make public the names of the finalists in its search for superintendent. Her request is likely to remain unfulfilled: “And board president Lynn Rogers was less than reassuring Wednesday when asked whether the public would have an opportunity to learn the names of more candidates than just the winner.”

What we’d really like to know if Martin Libhart, the present superintendent — interim, that is — applied for this job. Whether he did, and whether his application was considered seriously by this board, will tell us a lot about both parties.

{ 1 comment }

Wichita school bond contributors: self-interest gone wild

by Bob Weeks on December 31, 2008

in Wichita and Kansas schools

The campaign finance report filed by Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE), reporting on the campaign in favor of the bond issue to benefit USD 259, the Wichita public school district, contains information that should be of interest to Wichitans. (To download and read the report, visit this article: Wichita School Bond Finance Report Omits a Big Contribution.)

For example, Kenton Cox of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture contributed $13,800 in cash to CARE, and that firm made an in-kind contribution of $15,380, reported by the Wichita Eagle to be donated signs.

Why would an architecture firm have such an intense interest in Wichita public schools? Why would Kenton Cox be concerned, given that he doesn’t even live in USD 259? Here’s a possible answer: the minutes of the December 8 meeting of the board report that Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was awarded a contract for plan management services for the bond issue. The value of this contract, as reported by the Wichita Eagle, is one percent of the value of the bond issue, or $3.7 million. This firm will undoubtedly earn millions more for those projects on which it serves as architect.

Was this lucrative contract put up for bid? Was any other firm considered? Was there ever any doubt that Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture’s contributions to the bond issue campaign would be returned multiplied many-fold?

(The board meeting minutes report that a summary of the agreement for plan management services is available in the appendix to the agenda. Just three weeks later, however, that material is no longer available on USD 259’s website. That’s a problem of a different kind with USD 259.)

Then, what about all the other architect firms that contributed many thousands to the CARE campaign? Civic involvement or self-interest — hoping to be sent a few crumbs in the form of design contracts that Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture decides not to keep for itself?

For the construction and engineering companies that contributed many thousands, the same questions apply.

One analysis finds that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, was given by contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction.

Campaign finance reports for the groups that opposed the bond issue will show that real estate developers and owners contributed heavily to these campaigns. It’s likely that the Wichita Eagle — Rhonda Holman, probably — will editorialize about greedy developers, only wanting to increase their profits on the backs of schoolchildren.

These developers, however, are looking out for two things: First, it’s really their tenants that pay the increased property taxes that the school bond will impose. Then, in turn, anyone who eats in these restaurants, or shops at these stores, or rents these apartments, will pay more. The misinformation that USD 259 and CARE spread — that the bond issue costs just a dollar a week for a typical homeowner — didn’t acknowledge these costs.

Second, the property tax environment in Wichita and Kansas is such that development is discouraged. Some projects, as reported in the Wichita Eagle, have been canceled. What’s not seen by the news media and Wichitans are the projects that aren’t proposed or considered because of our high — and about to be made higher — property taxes. We’ll never see or hear about these.

When considering who are the greedy and self-interested parties, look at the CARE campaign finance report and the education bureaucracy in charge of the Wichita public schools. Their names are there.

{ 5 comments }

Kansas law requires Wichita to hold another public hearing

by Bob Weeks on December 23, 2008

in Wichita city government

Recently, the Wichita city council passed a resolution announcing a public hearing on a TIF district and its project plan. The city then, on the day before the hearing, substantially changed the plan. This change means that the city must hold another public hearing.

Kansas statute 12-1772 says in paragraph (c)(3)(f) that substantial changes to the project plan require a new public hearing. The changes the Wichita city council made less than 24 hours before the public hearing nearly doubled the planned spending. Further, the new spending is of a different character. These are substantial changes that require a new public hearing.

This post on my blog, which was printed as an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, explains the situation: Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch.

Others agree that there were changes to the plan. Randy Brown argued for another public hearing (Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing). The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman noticed the problems with the Wichita city council’s action (The Process Should Be Most Important). Interim Wichita City Manager Scott Moore acknowledges defects in the process (Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership).

Citizens can’t have trust and confidence in government when business is conducted this way. This action, along with another high-profile breakdown in the processes at city hall (Wichita City Hall Confusion Leads to Evaporation of Confidence), should chasten the city to move cautiously and with due regard to process and respect for citizens. Holding another public hearing on the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district, would let the city start the process of regaining the trust of its citizens.

{ 3 comments }

Sedgwick County Commission fails citizens

by Bob Weeks on December 18, 2008

in Sedgwick county government

At yesterday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, Commissioners Tom Winters, Tim Norton, and Dave Unruh failed to take an opportunity to stand up for good government.

By ratifying the City of Wichita’s defective public hearing, notice is given that it’s open season on citizens. Their concerns are shoved aside. Commissioners say they were constrained by a very narrow range of action permitted by law. The reasons they voted against this TIF district in August are still there, though present in smaller measure.

The problem is that these politicians want something so badly that they’re willing to overlook major problems in procedures that are designed to give citizens a voice. Newspaper editorial writers aren’t helping. They’re usually at the forefront of “good government” efforts. But not the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, who wrote this in today’s lead editorial: “Yes, as some argue, the city should have done a better job of allowing public input on the arena TIF district. The late changes to the Dec. 2 City Council agenda left the public and at least one council member unfamiliar with the plan to add $10 million for future parking needs, arming critics and fueling public distrust of local government generally.” But, she’ll go along with this action anyway.

Nothing that this TIF district can build is as important as destroying citizen confidence and procedures designed to give them a voice.

Thank you to Commissioners Gwen Welshimer and Kelly Parks for voting for the interests of citizens instead of those of Wichita’s political entrepreneurs.

{ 6 comments }

Sedgwick County: please don’t ratify Wichita’s disrespect of citizens

December 17, 2008

I’m here today to ask this commission to not approve the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district. The reason I ask this of you is for reasons of good and open government, something I’m sure we can agree that all citizens are in favor of.

Read the full article →

Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership

December 15, 2008

In an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, Interim Wichita City Manager Scott Moore makes the case that “the [Wichita city] council’s Dec. 2 vote demonstrated leadership and an ability to respond decisively to urgent community matters after appropriate public deliberations.”

Read the full article →

No Diligence in Wichita City Hall

December 12, 2008

Rhonda Holman’s Wichita Eagle editorial today (Need vetting of City Hall partners) correctly states that city staff “missed the mark in vetting negotiator Grant Gaudreau.” Or is the proper title “principal developer,” as stated by Wichita’s director of urban development Allen Bell? (See Wichita’s Faulty Due Diligence for video.)

Read the full article →

The Process Should Be Most Important

December 8, 2008

A confusing move last week by the Wichita City Council didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately. Without time for public consideration, city leaders added up to $10 million for parking structures to the proposed tax-increment financing plan for the 16-block area around the arena; the council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday.

Read the full article →

Just Say It: We Need to Raise Taxes in Kansas

November 25, 2008

Rhonda Holman’s Wichita Eagle editorial today (State budget pain must be shared) makes the case for raising Kansas taxes without directly saying so. It’s actually quite artful the way she dodges actually saying what she wants Kansas legislators to do.
Using language like “Nobody ever wants to raise taxes …” and “Lawmakers also must not [...]

Read the full article →

On the Wichita Eagle editorial board, partisanship reigns

October 31, 2008

The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, writing for the editorial board in today’s lead editorial (Where do city, county stand on bond?) makes a few points that illustrate the highly partisan nature of this board.

Read the full article →

Untruths about carbon and its regulation at the Wichita Eagle

October 30, 2008

The Wichita Eagle’s recent editorial by Rhonda Holman takes a few Kansas legislators to task for statements regarding regulatory uncertainly in Kansas (No ‘regulatory uncertainty’ in Kansas, October 28, 2008 Wichita Eagle). She claims their statements “don’t reflect reality” and that their untruths are harming Kansas’ ability to bring in business.

Read the full article →

Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman on Wichita school bond issue

October 13, 2008

The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, in her recent editorial Business should get off fence on bond, urges voters to get educated about the proposed Wichita School bond issue. It would be helpful if she’d do the same.

Read the full article →

Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

September 24, 2008

Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”
This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by [...]

Read the full article →

Wichita School Bond Presentation by Helen Cochran

September 16, 2008

On September 15, 2008, Helen Cochran of Citizens for Better Education gave a talk before a Wichita civic group. Her talk was fabulous. Here are some highlights:

Helen (like myself) has tried to get test scores from USD 259 (Wichita public school district), but it’s a difficult process. There’s always a delay or reason why figures aren’t available. But, as Helen noted in her talk, school board president Lynn Rogers and Wichita Eagle columnist Mark McCormick seem to have access to the data. Openness and transparency, as I noted in posts like Wichita Public Schools: Open Records Requests Are a Burden isn’t a competency at USD 259.

Read the full article →

Government Art in Wichita

July 16, 2008

Do we really want government art in Wichita?
David Boaz, in his recent book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties writes this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:
It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it [...]

Read the full article →

Wichita School System Extends Its Monopoly

August 15, 2007

Local school districts claim they want to be held accountable, but they strenuously resist the one way that provides true accountability. That way is the market, where people vote with their dollars and the future welfare of their children.

True accountability can be achieved in only one way: let the government of the State of Kansas relinquish its monopoly on the financing and production of schooling — the very type of monopoly power that, if wielded by private enterprise, would be condemned as unjust and immoral.

Read the full article →

Economic fallacy supports arts in Wichita

June 18, 2007

Recently two editorials appeared in The Wichita Eagle promoting government spending on the arts because it does wonderful things for the local economy. The writers are Rhonda Holman and Joan Cole, who is chairwoman of the Arts Council.

I read the study that these local writers relied on. The single greatest defect in this study is that it selectively ignores the secondary effects of government spending on the arts.

Read the full article →

Government funds promoting downtown Wichita arena

March 25, 2007

… it is our opinion that public funds may not be used to promote or advocate the position of a governing body on a matter which is before the electorate. However, this does not mean that public funds may not be expended to educate and inform the electorate.

That’s the opinion of the Kansas Attorney General Robert Stephan from 1993.

Read the full article →

Rhonda, markets are the answer

October 13, 2006

Now it is no secret that Ms. Holman disagrees with some of the actions the board has taken the past few years. I am quite certain that if she agreed with what the board has done, she would have not written this editorial, and the governor would have not criticized the board. After all, both are in favor of expansion of government, as long as they agree with what the government is doing.

Read the full article →

What to do with others’ money

June 21, 2006

In a June 20, 2006 Wichita Eagle editorial, Rhonda Holman writes about the WaterWalk project in Wichita.

Evidently there is controversy over the public not knowing the name of the “destination restaurant” that is being courted and favored with a gift of $1 million. To me, the controversy is not the identify of the restaurant or when and how the city should conduct its negotiations, but that we are paying for a restaurant to be built.

Read the full article →

The AirTran subsidy and its unseen effects

June 19, 2006

In a June 16, 2006 column, Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman again congratulates local and state government for its success in renewing the AirTran subsidy, and for getting the entire state of Kansas to help for it.

Read the full article →

Arts funding in Wichita produces controversy

June 13, 2006

As local government tries to decide which arts and cultural institutions are to receive government funds, controversy arises. A June 8, 2006 Wichita Eagle article titled “Arts panel biases alleged” tells how some funding applicants are upset that some of the members of the funding committee have ties to organizations that also applied for funds. In an editorial titled “Let Arts Funding Work” published in the June 10, 2006 Wichita Eagle, Rhonda Holman writes “The process may not be perfect, but it’s a precious opportunity for public dollars to be invested in the arts and attractions in a merit-based way that’s fair, open and accountable.”

Read the full article →