Recently Kansas Policy Institute, along with Americans for Prosperity and Kansas Chamber of Commerce, held a series of briefings for candidates for the Kansas Legislature. The presentations in Wichita were recorded, and are available as follows:
What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on the reality and myths of the state’s tax plan. Click here to view at YouTube.
Kansas K-12 Education Spending and Achievement. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on K-12 education spending and achievement. Click here to view.
Medicaid Expansion. Melissa Fausz, a senior policy analyst with Americans for Prosperity, spoke about Medicaid expansion. Click here to view.
Kansas Chamber Legislative Update. Eric Stafford, vice president of government affairs for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, spoke on the legislative process in Kansas. Click here to view.
Property Taxes. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on property taxes in Kansas. Click here to view.
If Kansas government doesn’t have enough money to meet spending requests, it’s not for the lack of collecting taxes.
Here is a chart of state tax collections per resident, for Kansas and selected states.
Do you hear complaints of how Kansas is bankrupt and there is no money to spend on schools, roads, and other needs? If these complaints are valid (they aren’t), the problem is not caused by collecting insufficient tax revenue.
To learn more about the data in this visualization and to use it to make your own charts, click here.
State government tax collections per resident, Kansas and other states. Click for larger.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kansas House of Representatives Candidates for districts 97 and 100. This was recorded June 29, 2018.
Candidates invited this week included:
Kansas House District 97
Nick J. Hoheisel and Michael E. Walker. Hoheisel did not attend.
District 97 is currently represented by Les Osterman, who is not running. It is far southwest Wichita plus surrounding areas. A map is here: www.kslegislature.org/li/m/pdf/district_maps/district_map_h_097.pdf
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kansas House of Representatives Candidates for districts 87 and 93. This was recorded June 22, 2018.
Candidates invited this week included:
Kansas House District 87
Renee Erickson and Jeff Kennedy
District 87 is currently represented by Roger Elliott, who is not running. It is far east Wichita plus portions of Minneha township. A map is here: www.kslegislature.org/li/m/pdf/district_maps/district_map_h_087.pdf
Kansas House District 93
J.C. Moore and John Whitmer. Moore did not attend.
District 93 is currently represented by John Whitmer. It covers a small part of southwest Wichita and areas west and south. Cities: Cheney, Clearwater, Goddard (part), Haysville (part), Mulvane (part), Viola and Wichita (part). Townships: Afton, Attica (part), Erie, Illinois (part), Morton, Ninnescah, Ohio, Salem, Viola and Waco(part). A map is here: www.kslegislature.org/li/m/pdf/district_maps/district_map_h_093.pdf
A full-page advertisement critical of the leadership of Wichita State University, from “Advocates for Integrity, Transparency and Accountability,” appearing in the Wichita Eagle, Sunday June 3, 2018. For the advertisement as it appeared in the newspaper, click here.
This is part of a continuing series of advertisements debating the course of Wichita State University. For previous ads, see:
WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY, IT’S TIME TO LIFT THE SHADE
A growing number of alumni, faculty, staff and citizens are concerned about decisions being made at Wichita State University. As higher education becomes more complex, transparency, shared governance and civility are just that much more important. The following are some of the concerns that have been gathered from a much longer list:
When the WSU Administration sold the idea of the YMCA Wellness Center on the Innovation Campus to the Student Government Association, did they explain how many years the student annual commitment of $5 million would apply? Students are going to be paying the full operational costs of the building and likely will have contributed $20 million before the facility is even completed. A 20-year commitment, as an example, would cost students $100 million, 40-years, $200 million. Should student fees be expected to fund Innovation Campus projects of this magnitude? Is there an agreement in place? Where is it? If it exists, who signed it? Can it be adjusted?
When Fairmount Towers, an old but serviceable low-cost residence hall was closed to protect investors in The Flats (a private luxury apartment building on the Innovation Campus that on its own had produced fewer than 50 contracts) four annual bond payments of $875,000 each were left outstanding, totaling $3,500,000. This debt service will have to be covered. What is the source of the payments, now that the student housing fees that previously serviced the debt have been redirected to The Flats? If the debt has been covered, from which pocket did that come from?
The University president has said he is no longer worried about headcount enrollment because “it doesn’t mean much anymore”. Even so, during his tenure, the University has invested a minimum of three million dollars in a multi-year agreement with the Royall and Company enrollment program (headquartered in Richmond, Virginia) for that very purpose, producing little if any discernible results. What is the payment source for this investment?
President Bardo lately has seemed dismissive of the role of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. He asked whether anyone would wish the University would be an “elite” liberal arts college, apparently failing to recognize that Liberal Arts and Sciences has provided the foundation for every educated student who has attended since 1895. When did excellence in this college cease to be less important than excellence on the Innovation Campus or elsewhere on the campus? Faculty and staff in Liberal Arts and Sciences feel they have borne the the brunt of budget cuts when state funding has declined, and there has been no noticeable administrative effort to restore academic positions. Is this perception accurate? If so, how can it be justified? The Innovation Campus offers only a small fragment of the education occurring at Wichita State.
Prior administrations utilized the majority of the City of Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy tax appropriation allocated to WSU for student scholarships. In 2013, 57% of that allocation went toward student support and 32.6% to capital improvements ($800,000 to NIAR and $1.6 million to debt service). The budget for 2018 indicates the elimination of debt service obligations, resulting in $1.6 million in available funds that could have been restored to its original purpose of funding scholarships. Instead, allocations for WSU Innovation Campus increased from $513,036 in 2017 to $2,317,061 for 2018, an increase of 351%. The dollar amount for student support remained the same. Why did this administration choose not to return the mill levy funding back to its original purpose by increasing scholarship funding for students in Sedgwick County?
In 2016, an “Ideas Lab” to be housed in Henrion Hall was announced by the College of Fine Arts and enthusiastically supported by the central administration and WSU Foundation. It was intended to be a collaborative approach for teaching creative industries, using innovative methods and materials. Faculty were very excited about the possibilities, noting there was nothing like it in this region of the country. Representatives from the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation objected because in their view it was too similar to “GoCreate”, a Koch gift located elsewhere on the campus. As a result, even after the earlier public endorsement of the University, the project was canceled. How is putting such control in the hands of Koch good for WSU?
The use of corporate entities, Wichita State University Innovation Alliance and Wichita State Innovation Alliance Investment, Inc., to manage the Innovation Campus obscures the risks undertaken by WSU by investing in commercial entities and letting sub-leases that can create obligations in the form of debt, liability or lost opportunities for decades. The resources committed to these activities belong to WSU. Leases and sub-leases related to these resources should be subject to open records laws. Why are these documents being kept from public scrutiny? Who benefits from this arrangement? Have we built alliances with persons and entities who do not share our founding principles?
Why have conflict of interest issues among executives and representatives of corporations with whom WSU has entered into contracts gone undisclosed until discovered and reported from outside sources? (e.g. According to the Management Review for Wichita State University report to the Kansas Board of Regents, “As Dr. John Tomblin has many roles with the University, WSIA, WSIAIC, The National Institute of Aviation Research (“NIAR”), and personally owned entities, there is an increased risk for conflicts of interest with respect to time, compensation and fiduciary duty. For example, Dr. Tomblin and his wife own 29.33% of Aero Point Technologies, LLC (“Aero Point”). The University owns the rights and intends to exclusively license Aero Point’s technology.” Prior to this finding by BKD, the Conflict of Interest Policy then in place only required Dr. Tomblin to disclose the conflict if his ownership exceeded 35%. What was the rationale for choosing 35% as the threshold for disclosing a conflict of interest? Has a new, more robust and responsible conflict of interest policy been issued?
There is a climate of fear and retribution on campus. The administration has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle personnel issues when staff and faculty members were forced to leave. Settlement was made subject to the signing of a non-disclosure agreement. What gave rise to this demoralizing environment and what is being done to correct it?
This ad was not written by enemies of Wichita State University, but by people who care.
This ad was paid for by
Advocates for Integrity, Transparency and Accountability.
Considering all government employees in proportion to population, Kansas has many compared to other states, and especially so in education.
Each year the United States Census Bureau surveys federal, state, and local government civilian employees. I’ve gathered this data and present it in an interactive visualization using several views and supplementary calculations. 1
The Census Bureau collects both counts of employees and payroll dollars. Comparisons based on the number of employees are useful, bypassing issues such as differing costs of living and salaries in general.
Considering all government employees, Kansas has 68.35 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per thousand residents. Only two states and the District of Columbia have more.
For total elementary and secondary education employment, Kansas has 30.64 such employees (full-time equivalent) per thousand residents. Only two states have more.
Click here to learn more about the visualization and to use it yourself.
In this example from the visualization showing Kansas and nearby states, Kansas stands out. Click for larger.
A full-page advertisement defending the leadership of Wichita State University, from “Friends of the University,” appearing in the Wichita Eagle, Sunday April 22, 2018. For the advertisement as it appeared in the newspaper, click here. For the advertisement from the week before, which criticized the university leadership, click on Wichita State University degraded, says ad.
INNOVATIVE THINKING FOR TODAY’S REALITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The playing field of higher education is rapidly changing. The models of the 1970s, or even 1990s, are no longer applicable. With state public funding now paying only about 35% of total educational costs, roughly half of the amount covered less than 20 years ago, universities must seek new avenues of revenue and partnerships, enabling delivery of high quality education across their campuses.
Wichita State University, under President John Bardo, is on the leading edge of this forward-thinking concept. The WSU innovation campus, creation of WSU Tech, and a number of other initiatives recently launched will provide the pathway to ongoing success, not merely for the University but all of Wichita and South Central Kansas, for decades to come.
For the record, we support Doctor Bardo and his colleagues who are bringing highly favorable national recognition to our community, while assuring Wichita State’s ability to continue to prepare students with knowledge and skills for successful careers in all academic areas.
Loyal Shockers in Support of our University and its Leadership
Al Higdon, treasurer, 1513 Foliage Court, Wichita, Ks. 316-650-8665
We the undersigned endorse and have paid for this message, in the best interest of Wichita State University, its students, faculty and staff, as well as for the prosperity of our greater community.
There followed a list of signatories. Also:
Paid political advertisement
A full-page advertisement critical of the leadership of Wichita State University, from “Friends of the University,” appearing in the Wichita Eagle, Sunday April 15, 2018. For the advertisement as it appeared in the newspaper, click here.
WHOSE UNIVERSITY IS IT ANYWAY?
As Kansans and taxpayers, we protest the degradation of our public democratic institution, Wichita State University. The current university leaders have eroded the bedrock policies and values upon which the university was founded.
Some examples:
With their intimidations and threats to underfund The Sunflower, the student newspaper, they have assaulted freedom of the press
With the creation of the WSU Innovation Alliance, they have sublet public university land to private developers, thereby evading the requirements of the Kansas Open Records and Open Meetings Acts
With their refusal to fund faculty positions in certain disciplines, they have undermined the liberal arts and sciences, an insult to the university’s original purpose
With their use of student fees to support the Innovation Campus, they have saddled present and future students with millions in future debt obligations
With their decisions to build a multi-million-dollar housing complex, and to divert 5 percent of scholarship money to non-academic purposes, they have evaded accountability to the university’s owners, the people of Kansas
With their use of non-credit and non-academic courses to inflate student enrollment numbers, they have undermined public confidence in their integrity — and their stewardship
With their allocation of a public building to a private school, they have flouted the principle that public resources be used to the public’s benefit
As Kansans, we beseech the Kansas Board of Regents to redress these abuses of the public trust, and to protect students, faculty members and community residents from further such abuses.
There followed a list of signatories, plus an indication there are some who wanted anonymity. Also:
This ad was paid for by Friends of the University.
Anne Woods — Treasurer | P.O. Box 8714 | Wichita, KS 67208 | 316-688-1889
Paid political advertisement
Duane Goossen, former high Kansas government official, says the state’s highways are in trouble. What is his evidence?
In a recent op-ed, Duane Goossen laments the lack of spending on Kansas roads and highways. 1 His focus is his claimed lack spending on maintenance, which, he says, will lead to much larger repair bills in the future.
“But now the Kansas road system is truly threatened.” He raises the common “Bank of KDOT” criticism, writing “The highway fund became a convenient source of cash.”
KDOT transfers from sales tax . Click for larger.It’s true, as Goossen writes, that a lot of money has been transferred from the highway fund to the general fund. At the same time, the amount of sales tax dollars transferred from the general fund to the transportation fund has risen, and by a factor of five over one decade.
But it isn’t true that Kansas highways are crumbling from lack of spending on maintenance.
Kansas Highway Conditions, through 2017. Click for larger.Here’s a chart of the conditions of Kansas roads and highways. 2 It shows that, for interstate highways, the percent of the system in good condition has been pretty level since 2001. For non-interstate highways, the percent in good condition fell starting in 2004, but has rebounded.
Based on these charts, there’s no factual basis to claim that Kansas roads and highways are deteriorating.
KDOT spending, major road programs. Click for larger.KDOT spending, total road programs. Click for larger.KDOT transfers. Click for larger.KDOT funding sources, partial. Click for larger.But Goossen looks to the future, claiming that a lack of spending now will lead to big bills later. Now, it’s important to know that while money has been transferred from the highway fund, that alone doesn’t tell us about the level of spending on maintenance. Looking at actual spending instead of transfers to and from, we find that for fiscal year 2017, spending on three categories (Maintenance, Preservation, and Modernization) was nearly unchanged from the year before, while spending on the category Expansion and Enhancement fell by 31 percent.
For these four categories — which represent the major share of KDOT spending on roads — spending in fiscal 2017 totaled $738.798 million. That’s down 14 percent from $857.133 million the year before, and up from a low of $698.770 million in fiscal 2010. 3
And adjusted for inflation, spending on maintenance programs has declined somewhat, including in the years when Goossen held high office. These declines, however, are far short of setting up Goossen’s prediction of calamity.
Then, there’s this, which is really incredible. Goossen criticizes some of the bonds issued by KDOT in recent years, and he is on the mark: “And a portion of that debt has ‘interest only’ payments in the first years, with the principal payments still to come.”
However: The state also issued “interest only” bonds in 2004 and 2010. 4 Who was budget director during these years, as well as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Administration? Duane Goossen. 5 But now Goossen criticizes as irresponsible the same action the state took when he was in high office.
Given the insufficient factual basis for Goossen’s claims — not to mention the blatant hypocrisy — we have to wonder if this article is politically motivated. Perhaps it is, as we see Goossen making the maximum allowed contribution to Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Laura Kelly.
Either that, or Goossen is auditioning for another government job.
From the 
