Category Archives: Politics

From Pachyderm: Professor Mel Kahn on 2018 Election Results

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Wichita State University Political Science Professor Mel Kahn speaking on the results of the 2018 General Election. This informative and entertaining presentation was recorded on November 9, 2018. Introduction was by Dalton Glasscock.

Political civility in our age of thuggery

Following, from Karl Peterjohn, an account of why the Wichita Pachyderm Club is a valuable civic institution. The candidate mentioned in the article is Renee Duxler, running for Sedgwick County Commission District 1 (map is here). On her Facebook page she wrote “Proving once again that Democrats and Republicans can share ideas and thoughtful discussion within the same spaces … this gal ‘infiltrated’ the Wichita Pachyderm Club for a great presentation by Kyle Bauer, of KFRM radio, on the history and future of agriculture here in Kansas. They were very gracious and welcoming, and I enjoyed the experience immensely. Let’s keep the conversations going Sedgwick County!” Of note: Her opponent, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), said he was “troubled” that the Pachyderm Club had a member who supported Duxler instead of him.

Political civility in our age of thuggery
By Karl Peterjohn

I want to protect the identity of the Democrat candidate who made the decision to attend the October 12 Pachyderm Club meeting in downtown Wichita. I am concerned that retribution from the leftist loons and Alinskyite thugs that inhabit the extremist, but increasingly mainstream wing of the Democrat Party could be substantial. This is not a partisan statement. A couple of days ago I saw an online report where a Pennsylvania Democrat was forced to resign his party position because of his pro-American beliefs.

While I was presiding as the substitute president, I had the task of introducing elected officials and during elections, candidates running for office. This is routine with anywhere from a half dozen to a dozen candidates in attendance as we were about four weeks away from an election.

I was informed that a Democrat candidate was attending this GOP meeting and I was asked to include her in the candidate introductions. In our current age where GOP members of Congress have been shot and assaulted by socialist and leftists (Steve Scalise and Rand Paul), where GOP offices from Manhattan to Wyoming have been vandalized this month, where GOP candidates in Minnesota have been physically attacked while campaigning, it would have been easy to decline this request. I considered doing this.

However, there should be civility in our public affairs, despite odious comments to the contrary from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, about civility being only for progressives, liberals, and leftists. Dare I say it, we increasingly live in a country and period of time where good political manners, are the exception and not the rule. Now the Pachyderm rules are clear, with all GOP candidates being endorsed for the general election ballot, but no position taken in contested primaries. The rule on public introductions is not clear, was left to the presiding officer, no matter how temporary he happens to be, at the podium.

When I got down to the Democrat candidate’s name I went ahead and introduced her to the Pachyderm Club members and guests. I did point out her party affiliation, and contrasted the Pachyderm’s polite treatment of this Democrat candidate with the vile statement from the Obama administration attorney general Eric Holder that violence, in the form of his admonition, “… kick them,” in attacking Republicans is increasingly the political standard today.

The Wichita Pachyderm Club has occasionally had democrats as speakers. I pointed this out. A prominent Wichita Democrat, Professor Mel Kahn, has spoken to Pachyderm and the informational speakers, whether they are talking about Plato, Alexander Hamilton, or at this meeting, agriculture in Kansas, do not have a partisan political subject. This speaker, KFRM radio’s Kyle Bauer, could have just as easily provided his excellent agriculture presentation to Democrats, Libertarians, or any other group of Kansans interested in this important part of our state’s economy (This is a free plug for Mr. Bauer who provided an exceptional agriculture presentation).

I believe that the Pachyderm Club provided an example of civility in the public policy arena. This is Kansas nice. Sadly, this is increasingly the exception in today’s toxic political climate where conservatives and Republican elected officials are harassed in public, harangued at restaurants, in office hallways, town hall meetings disrupted, and general nastiness under Representative Maxine Waters admonitions promoting thuggery are increasingly commonplace. I must admit, that in the past the Pachyderm Club has taken steps to make sure that disruptions, and disruptive behavior, did not occur from non-members who opposed a speaker at one of our meetings. How sad.

The Constitution of our country is the outline of how we govern ourselves. The states, and the localities and governmental bodies created by the states (like counties, cities, and school districts), are the public institutions we use to resolve public policy differences in our democratic republic. Our Constitution has been a model for the rest of the world since it was enacted in 1789. Other nations resolve their public policy differences by other ways, using other means. These often conflict with the liberty our Constitution and its amendments, tries to establish.

It has been said, that politics is a form of war by other means. We had one civil war, with over 600,000 killed and hundreds of thousands permanently injured, and that is a part of our nation’s history when our differences could not be resolved politically. Violence and thuggery should not be part of our future, but it is a present problem, and a growing threat to our republic.

I am glad that civility was alive and well at the Pachyderm Club on October 12. I hope that this becomes a model for other public meetings by other groups in the future. I am afraid that this political civility was an exception, but it does deserve public notice since the local news media was not in attendance.

Ranked-choice voting in Kansas

A look at ranked-choice voting and how it might have worked in the Kansas Republican gubernatorial primary election in August 2018.

Most elections in America utilize plurality voting. Wikipedia explains: “Plurality voting is an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the candidate who polls the most among their counterparts (a plurality) is elected. In a system based on single-member districts, it may be called first-past-the-post (FPTP), single-choice voting, simple plurality or relative/simple majority.” 1

Consider the recent primary election for the Republican party nomination for Kansas governor. It was close, with Governor Colyer at 40.513% of the vote and Secretary of State Kris Kobach at 40.622%. With 316,437 votes having been cast, the difference is like one vote out of every 372 votes cast.

In a close election like this, there is intense campaigning, not only among the candidates, but also among their supporters. If there are more than two candidates — there were seven in this contest — campaigning may consist of persuading voters that if you don’t vote for my candidate, you’re just throwing your vote away. Other strategic voting arguments may be made. There is, however, a way to let everyone vote for who they really like.

Simplify just a bit. Suppose there were three candidates: Jim Barnett, Jeff Colyer, and Kris Kobach. On the political landscape. Barnett is a (self-described, I believe) moderate. Kobach is far to the conservative spectrum. Colyer is somewhere between the two, at least according to Kobach supporters, as they regularly slam Colyer for not being conservative enough (whatever that means).

In the pre-election polls Barnett showed much less support than Colyer or Kobach. Also, conventional wisdom was that Barnett and Colyer are more like each other than either is like Kobach.

So, in a regular election, called a plurality election, how do voters decide? No doubt some voters prefer a specific candidate and would not consider voting for anyone else. Other voters may not be as committed, or are willing to express multiple preferences.

As an example, suppose the preferences of voters — the true preference in their heart of hearts, without any thought of strategic voting, just who they really want to be governor — looks like this:

Kobach: 40%
Colyer: 35%
Barnett: 25%
Total: 100%

Who wins this election, if every voter votes their true preference? Kobach.

But remember, Barnett and Colyer are more like each other than they are similar to Kobach. So Colyer supporters are likely to be thinking “Look, our candidate is so different from Kobach, what if just a few Barnett voters had voted for Colyer?” The answer to that question is if 20% (plus one) of the Barnett voters had voted for Colyer, Kobach would lose to Colyer.

This type of strategic voting is what the Colyer campaign recommended. A Colyer television ad advised ““A vote for [Jim Barnett or Ken Selzer] is essentially a vote for Kris Kobach, increasing his chance of victory” 2 Evidently, the Colyer campaign believed that the anti-Kobach vote is larger than the pro-Kobach vote, but is split between two candidates, with neither of them individually having more support than Kobach. (Ignore Ken Selzer for a moment, please.)

So what if you prefer Barnett and really dislike Kobach? Do you vote your true preference, or do you vote strategically to deny Kobach the victory? Will that strategy really work? Why can’t I vote for someone rather than against someone?

Your ballot instructions state “Select one candidate only.” But suppose the instructions were “Rank these candidates in order of preference, with 1 meaning most-preferred.” You might mark your ballot like this:

Barnett: 1
Colyer: 2
Kobach: 3

This voter is saying something like this: “I really like Jim Barnett, but if he doesn’t get a majority of votes, I prefer Jeff Colyer over Kris Kobach.”

This is ranked-choice voting. In the example above, if everyone votes their true preferences without strategic voting, 40% of voters would have marked Kobach as their first preference. But 40% is not a majority, so using ranked-choice voting, here’s what happens:

First, because Barnett has the lowest number of first preferences, he is eliminated from the contest.

Then, the counters look at Barnett voters’ second preferences, either Colyer or Kobach, and assign votes accordingly. In the example ballot above, the voter selected Colyer as his second preference. Therefore, that vote is transferred from Barnett to Colyer. If the voter had ranked Kobach second, the vote would be transferred to Kobach.

In this example, since there are just three candidates, after the Barnett votes are transferred to Colyer or Kobach, the vote-counting is over and there is a winner, or a tie. (If a contest has just two candidates, there is no need for ranked-choice voting, unless there is an alternative to vote for “none of the above.”)

Who would win in this example? If it true that Barnett is more like Colyer than Kobach, it is likely that Barnett voters mostly ranked Colyer as their second preference. So Colyer would have a majority, and wins.

The actual situation in the Kansas Republican gubernatorial primary was more complex, with seven candidates. But ranked-choice voting works the same, although it may take several rounds of counting to determine the winner.

The results of the Republican party primary are nearby. As you can see, the top four candidates received 97.8% of the vote. Were votes for candidates other than Colyer or Kobach wasted votes? What if those who voted for Barnett, Selzer, Kucera, Ruzich, or Tutera had been able to indicate their second preference?

In the Kansas primary there were other major contests with multiple candidates: House of Representatives District 2 for Republicans, House of Representatives District 3 for Democrats, and governor for Republicans and Democrats. Looking forward to the general election, there will be five candidates for governor, one each from the Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties, and two independents.


Notes

  1. Wikipedia. Plurality voting. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting.
  2. Stephen Koranda. Colyer Ad Says Some Candidates Could Spoil Race for Kansas Governor. Available at http://kansaspublicradio.org/kpr-news/colyer-ad-says-some-candidates-could-spoil-race-kansas-governor.

Hugh Nicks on character and respect in Sedgwick County

In the campaign for a Sedgwick County Commission position, character is an issue.

On his Facebook campaign page for Sedgwick County Commission, candidate Hugh Nicks wrote: “This election is about numerous issues, with jobs being #1. But quality of character is a strong second.” 1

A value that Hugh Nicks promotes on his campaign website and in printed material is “Debate respectfully.” 2

It’s richly ironic that Nicks makes character an issue, because his campaigning is rife with outright lies and logic-twisting distortions about his opponent Richard Ranzau.

And if Hugh Nicks values respectful debate, he could elevate the discourse by stopping the lies.

This campaign has gone beyond the usual character-bashing and self-promotion we expect.

It’s not only Nicks himself that is campaigning dishonestly. The Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC is also lying and distorting.

It’s true that the Chamber PAC is campaigning for Nicks (and against Ranzau) independently. The PAC speaks for itself.

But if Hugh Nicks is aware of the dishonest campaigning by the Chamber PAC, there’s nothing to stop him from publicly denouncing and disavowing the Chamber. That would be a positive display of character, showing he values truth more than holding political office.

(If Nicks is not aware, or if he doesn’t realize the Chamber PAC’s campaigning is dishonest, that itself is a problem.)

Instead, Nicks embraces and promotes the Chamber PAC’s endorsement.

Hugh Nicks, should he lose the election next week, will fade from public attention. But the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce and its PAC won’t. The Chamber will still be involved in civic life and political campaigns.

That’s too bad. The people of Wichita want to trust their business and civic leaders. We want the Chamber and its surrogates and affiliates like Greater Wichita Partnership to succeed in shepherding the Wichita economy.

But the Chamber is shaming itself in this campaign.

The record of the Hugh Nicks campaign

Allegation: On July 23, 2018, Hugh Nicks wrote on his campaign’s Facebook page: “Richard Ranzau has spent the last 8 YEARS saying ‘NO’ to our safety. Voting against support for law enforcement.” An article from the Wichita Business Journal is then linked to. The subject of the article was the proposed WSU Law Enforcement Training Center.

Truth: The article reports that Richard Ranzau and all commissioners voted to defer a decision on the training center for one week. Then, Ranzau and all commissioners voted in favor of building the center. For more on this, see Hugh Nicks and the law enforcement training center.

Allegation: Hugh Nicks wrote this on his campaign’s Facebook page, referring to Richard Ranzau: “And even questioned the need for handicapped-accessible recreational options.”

Truth: Richard Ranzau asked questions about a proposed ADA-compliant fishing dock with a cost of $53,500. The next week commissioners were told that the dock cost was just $26,162, with other things like site prep, a sidewalk, and an access road adding up to $53,500. With this additional information, Ranzau and all commissioners approved the project. For more on this, see Hugh Nicks and the Sedgwick County fishing dock.

Allegation: In a campaign mailing paid for by the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee, Richard Ranzau is criticized: “Ranzau also suggested that Wichita annex a large local job-creating aerospace employer to generate more tax revenue.”

Truth: This claim is based on a farcical interpretation of what the commissioner actually said. Richard Ranzau did not suggest that Wichita annex Spirit Aerosystems. He merely illustrated that property taxes within the City of Wichita are higher than those outside the city. For more on this, see Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC mailing.

Allegation. On his Facebook page, Hugh Nicks accuses Richard Ranzau of “Voting against our community’s children and babies.”

Truth: Regarding the WIC program, no needy women or children went without the ability to use this program. The commission voted to reduce spending on administrative costs. The commission does not have the authority to set qualifications for participating in the program, nor does the commission set the level of benefits, that is, the amount of money and services participants receive. The county merely administers the program according to federal and state guidelines. For more on this, see Hugh Nicks: Misinformed, or lying?

Allegation: On Facebook, Hugh Nicks wrote: “He was the ONLY ‘NO’ vote for funding the Greater Wichita Partnership.”

Truth: The article Nicks uses as evidence states: “Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau took on the Greater Wichita Partnership on Wednesday, questioning why the public-private economic development coalition needs more county money to focus its strategy.” This extra funding was to pay for a consultant to focus on a strategic plan and regional strategy. It wasn’t for funding the basic operations of GWP.

Allegation: On Facebook, Hugh Nicks wrote: “He was the ONLY ‘NO’ vote for the county’s investment at Spirit AeroSystems to create 1,000 new high-paying jobs.”

Truth: In a television interview, Ranzau said that no economic development official could tell him that the incentives were necessary for the Spirit project to proceed in Wichita. One fellow commissioner said the incentive was needed to “show Spirit we care.”


Notes

  1. Nicks For County Commission Facebook page, July 27, 2018. Available at https://www.facebook.com/NicksForCountyCommission/posts/2027095350699179.
  2. http://www.nicks4commissioner.com/, viewed August 1, 2018.

From Pachyderm: Kansas Secretary of State Candidates

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kansas Secretary of State Candidates. While the Secretary of State might be considered merely a bureaucratic record-keeping position, current Secretary Kris Kobach has elevated its prominence. It has also been a breeding ground for gubernatorial candidates, including Kobach, Ron Thornburgh, and Bill Graves. This was recorded July 27, 2018.

Candidates appearing in this forum are:

An endorsement from the Wichita Chamber of Commerce

When the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee endorses a candidate, consider what that means.

If you’ve been following analyst James Chung — and it seems like everyone has — he’s delivered a sobering message: The Wichita economy has not been growing. “[Wichita has been] stuck in neutral for about three decades, with basically no growth, amidst the landscape of a growing U.S. economy,” he said. (In fact, in 2016 the Wichita economy shrank from the previous year, and numbers for 2017 don’t look much better.)

Chung says we need to change our ways. In his June visit he said, and the Chung Report wrote, “Every market signal points to the same conclusion: The manner in which Wichita is operating during this critical point in our history is just not working.”

So what needs to change? Chung won’t say, but here are two things:

First, there are some elected officials and bureaucrats who have presided over the stagnation of Wichita. These people need to go.

Second, there are also institutions that are problems, with one glaring example. In one way or another, the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce has taken the lead in economic development for many years. In recent years the Chamber ran Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. Now the effort has been split off to a non-profit corporation, the Greater Wichita Partnership.

That sounds good, but under the hood it’s the same leadership and the same methods, although with a few new hired hands.

So when James Chung (and others) says our manner of operation is not working, it’s the Wichita Chamber of Commerce and its ecosystem that must assume a large portion of blame.

Not only has the Wichita Chamber manner of operation not been working, its leadership hasn’t been working, either. In 2014 the Chamber showed charts of Wichita job growth as compared to the nation and other cities, and Wichita was near the bottom. The Chamber’s response was to advocate for a Wichita city sales tax, some to be used for economic development, but also for water supply enhancement, street repair, and bus transit improvement.

The Chamber managed the political campaign for the sales tax, and in November 2014, 62 percent of Wichita voters said no.

After this, what did the Chamber do? It had told Wichitans that an economic development fund fed by sales tax revenue was essential. Then, the sales tax vote failed. But that isn’t the only way to fund what the Chamber said we needed. The Chamber could have asked the Wichita city council to raise property taxes, and the council could have done that with a simple majority vote of its members. (Since then it has become more difficult, but still possible, to raise local property taxes.)

Or, the city could have raised franchise fees. These are like a sales tax added to utility bills. This could also have been accomplished with a simple majority vote of the council. The council could do it today, if its members wanted to.

None of these possibilities were pursued, at least to my knowledge. The Wichita Chamber of Commerce, after advocating for a sales tax it said was essential, gave up after defeat. It recommended that Wichitans vote to impose a sales tax themselves, but when it came to something it could have accomplished — new taxes through city council votes — the Chamber backed away.

The Chamber then formed the Greater Wichita Partnership. But many of the people who supported the Chamber’s sales tax are directing the operations of GWP, serving its strategic advisory team and the more-exclusive executive board.

This includes the president and CEO of the Wichita Chamber, who was also president during the sales tax campaign.

The Chamber endorsements

So when the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC supports candidates, spends money on their behalf, and issues endorsements, what should voters think?

Voters should remember that the Wichita Chamber has presided over the wreckage of the Wichita economy, its leaders still call the shots, and still wants to raise taxes, I believe.

Plus, these people will not accept responsibility for the harm they have caused.

This is a shame, because we want to be proud of our civic leadership. We want to have faith in our elected officials and bureaucrats.

But that isn’t the case in Wichita. Keep this in mind when considering candidates endorsed by the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC.

Project Wichita survey

The Project Wichita survey is about to end. Will it have collected useful data?

Project Wichita is “a community engagement process to identify the future we want for our home and the steps necessary to achieve it.” 1 So far it has held focus groups that collected ideas for the future of Wichita, in which “an astounding 3,800+ people 2 shared their vision in 239+ focus groups,” according to the project’s Facebook page. The survey, which is ending on July 6, is another component of the “listen” phase of the project, with “focus” and “share” phases still to come.

The survey may be taken on-line or by paper. The online survey is implemented as a number of pages, each concerning a topic. The first page is titled “Vision for Our Region: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following for developing a vision for the Wichita region. Our region should be a place that:” Following are several items like “all children have the chance to succeed.” Respondents are asked to select one of these responses for each item:

  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Undecided
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree

The second page is titled “Strong Neighborhoods. Please indicate the importance of investing resources (time, human resources, money) in the following for developing and supporting safe and strong neighborhoods throughout our region.” A sample item is “Repair deteriorating homes to improve neighborhoods.” Respondents may choose from these responses:

  • Not important investment
  • Slightly important investment
  • Moderately important investment
  • Very important investment
  • Essential investment

There is no opportunity to answer in any way other than these responses. There is no possibility of leaving a comment.

The question of the importance of investment continues with slight variation for six more pages on these topics:

  • Economic Advantage and Opportunity
  • Transportation
  • Cultural Arts
  • Attractions and Entertainment
  • Education; Community Wellness
  • Wichita Riverfront and Downtown Development

Then a page titled Regional Perspectives: “Please tell us your thoughts about the following regional questions” where participants are asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with the following:

  • I think an increase in population would make the Wichita region thrive.
  • I am optimistic about the future of the Wichita region.
  • I think the Wichita region has to be willing to change to keep and attract the next generation.

Then there are some demographic questions.

Problems

First, the responses that the project will collect are from a self-selected group of respondents. There is no way to guarantee or know that the respondents are a representative sample of area residents. The focus groups had the same problem. This has been a problem with Wichita’s outreach in the past. In 2014 the city was quite proud of its engagement and positive response regarding the proposed city sales tax. Then, on election day, 62 percent of voters said no. 3 (Of course, those who vote are also a self-selected group of respondents. On the sales tax question, 103,290 people cast a vote. 4 For that year, the Census Bureau estimated there were 283,780 people of voting age in Wichita. 5 So 36.4 percent of the eligible voters made the decision for the rest, voters and non-voters, and also for those too young or ineligible to vote. But when we ask to settle issues by voting, voters are the people who make the decisions.)

Another problem has to do with the preface to the many questions asking about the importance of making investments in various things. What is missing is whose resources are to be invested? Yours? Mine? Someone we don’t know?

Related is that almost all the items participants are asked to rate are things that almost everyone agrees are good. Who could not strongly agree with investing so that “all children have the chance to succeed?” I suppose that some people might select “Very important investment” instead of “Essential investment” for some items. That might produce a shade of difference in the importance of items.

What would really be useful, however, is asking participants to rank the importance of investing in each item, from most important to least important, with no ties allowed. Instructions might be worded like “Rank the importance of investing in the following five areas. 1 is the most important investment, while 5 is the least important. You must assign a rank to each item, and there may be no ties.”

Then, to make things really useful: Ask participants to produce rankings for the importance of public sector investment, and separate rankings for the importance of private sector investment.

Understanding and distinguishing the difference between public and private investment is vital. When people believe that others will be paying, there is no limit to what people want. Milton Friedman knew this: “When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else’s money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn’t care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else’s money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that’s government for you.” (For more, see Friedman: The fallacy of the welfare state.)

People recognize this. Remarks left on Facebook on the Project Wichita page 6 included this by one writer:

Just took survey! One would think “they” want to convert Wichita or Kansas to socialism. I’m a liberal conservative Democrat and yet questions are very concerning and disturbing.

Following up, the same person wrote:

Applaud the effort however many of the questions concerning me as it relates to governments role in community and well-being of such. … At what point should community and individuals be primarily responsible for many of the topics you address in your survey?

Another Facebook user wrote:

Your survey is great but you left out a very important piece of information. WHO is going to provide the money for the investments that are queried in your survey? A lot of areas need investment of funds but, those funds should come from the private sector, not public sector. As a result of the inability to discern a difference in the source of required investments, the survey is somewhat useless.”

Yet another from Facebook:

Each of your questions should be followed by the question, “How much are you personally willing to pay for this line item” or “Which government service should be eliminated to pay for this line item”. Your list will get quite short when people are asked to spend their own money rather than other people’s money.

These basic defects preclude this effort as being serious social science research. Yet, that is likely how it will be presented, especially since a university agency is involved.

Of note: Project Wichita has no official opinion as who should pay for these investments. Cynics — that is, realists — believe that programs like Project Wichita are designed to convince citizens to support increased taxes or debt issues to be repaid with future taxes, with those future taxes undoubtedly higher.

One reason for this suspicion is that portions of the Project Wichita process are being managed by Wichita State University’s Public Policy and Management Center. 7 Its director and its associated academics have a clear preference for higher taxes, at one time writing a paper advising cities to create “more willing taxpayers.” 8

Other people and companies that Project Wichita identifies as part of the “Vision Team” (or “funders”) also made large contributions to the campaign for a Wichita City sales tax in 2014:

  • Allen Gibbs & Houlik, L.C.
  • Jon Rolph and his company Sasnak
  • The Chandler family and Intrust Bank
  • GLMV Architecture
  • Emprise Bank
  • Spirit Aerosystems
  • Commerce Bank
  • Equity Bank
  • Cox Machine
  • Westar Energy
  • Professional Engineering Consultants
  • Star Lumber
  • Bothner & Bradley and its principals
  • Envision
  • Lubrication Engineers
  • Jeff Fluhr, head of Downtown Wichita and now also Greater Wichita Partnership

Some of these companies regularly receive economic development incentives from the City of Wichita or do business with the city. Some are subject to the city’s regulations such as zoning and permitting.

It’s difficult to digest all this without concluding that Project Wichita project is designed to develop a case — an appetite — for higher taxes. That’s even before realizing that the driving force behind Project Wichita — according to word on the street — is Jon Rolph, who was the chair of the campaign for the Wichita city sales tax in 2014. Further, Project Wichita is sharing offices with the Greater Wichita Partnership and Downtown Wichita, two organizations always in favor of the expansion of government.

Individual questions

Besides general problems with the survey instrument, there are these problems with individual items:

“Improve the current public transit system (e.g. expand routes, expand hours).” There may be support for spending public funds on this, even if it means raising taxes. This was one of the uses for the proposed Wichita city sales tax in 2014. It was bundled with other items, and voters defeated the tax.

“Make flights from Wichita Eisenhower National Airport more affordable.” We’ve spent a lot doing this. The city and the airport say the programs have been successful.

“Increase direct flights from Wichita Eisenhower National Airport.” This is an area that could use improvement. The number of departures and the number of available seats on departing flights has been underperforming the nation, despite much investment in the forms of tax-funded subsidies for airlines. There is also a new airport terminal.

“Offer more diverse entertainment options (e.g. music festivals, restaurants, theme parks).” There are many people trying to figure out what type of restaurants are wanted in Wichita, and where. These people are motivated by profit. It’s difficult to believe that government could do a better job of deciding upon, and operating, restaurants.

“Support entrepreneurial opportunities.” There is an organization doing this, e2e. More broadly, when the city offers economic development incentives, it makes it harder for young, entrepreneurial companies to survive as they must bear the cost of incentives and compete with incentivized companies for labor and capital. 9

Under education, a topic that is glaringly omitted is school choice. Parents like having the possibility of school choice, especially parents who can’t afford private school tuition. Plus, school choice, like charter schools, could help control “sprawl,” something that is often seen as a negative factor. If parents who want to live in central Wichita could have access to school choice in nearby schools, it might counter the commonly-held perception that if you want good schools for your children, you must buy a home outside the Wichita school district.

“Provide modern performing arts center (e.g. symphony, music theater, opera) that meets the region’s needs.” and “Provide a modern convention center that attracts more conventions and events.” These are topics that Wichita will likely be grappling with soon, and in a real way. Wichita has already hired a consultant to study this issue. (More information is at Century II resource center.) A task force is studying the issue. Soon, it is quite likely that residents of Wichita or Sedgwick County may be asked to approve a sales tax to fund a convention center and possible a performing arts center. Or, citizens suffer the implementation of Design Build Finance Operate and Maintain (DBFOM), or P3. In this model as applied to Wichita, a third party would do all the work of designing, financing, building, and operating a convention center and possibly a performing arts center. Then, the city simply pays a fee each year to use the center, called an “availability payment.” This is simple a way to disguise long-term debt. See Wichita about to commit to more spending. Bigly. for more about this.

Cynics — that is, realists — believe that programs like Project Wichita are designed to convince citizens to support these taxes or debt issues. (By the way, the convention center business is a poor way to build a city’s economy. See Should Wichita expand its convention facilities?.)


Notes

  1. Project Wichita. Available at https://www.projectwichita.org/.
  2. With the population of the city of Wichita at about 388,000, (U.S. Census Bureau. 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates), nearly one percent participated.
  3. Sedgwick County Election Office. Available at https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/election-results/2014-general/.
  4. Ibid.
  5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
  6. Available at https://www.facebook.com/ProjectWichita/.
  7. “Volunteers wanted the regional 10-year vision and action plan Project Wichita process to include big discussions from as many people as possible. So Wichita State University’s (WSU) Public Policy and Management Center team built a custom process for gathering input across the region. The process includes focus groups with individuals and organizations, gathering feedback at diverse community events, online surveys and robust social media engagement.” Project Wichita. Process. Available at https://www.projectwichita.org/process.
  8. Misty Bruckner is the Director. A few years ago Brucker she and her colleagues co-authored a paper titled “Citizen Attachment: Building Sustainable Communities. See http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GFR_OCT_10_24.pdf. My reporting on it was titled Wichita needs more, and willing, taxpayers. An excerpt: “Increasingly, citizens are retreating from their responsibilities to community and demanding more from government than they are willing to pay for. But changes in local government behavior can be instrumental in reversing this trend, by strengthening citizens’ commitment to the well-being of their communities. Citizens who are committed to community are more willing to accept responsibility for the well-being of their fellow citizens and are also more likely to join with government and other parties to improve their communities. Citizens who are committed to community are also more willing taxpayers — that is, when government demonstrates that it can be trusted to invest public resources in ways that strengthen the community. The central thrust of this model is getting citizens and governments to work together, but realistically, many communities will require new revenue — including additional tax dollars — if they are to assemble the critical mass of resources necessary for meaningful change. Accordingly, citizens who are willing to pay increased taxes are an important component of building sustainable communities.” (emphasis added)
  9. See Weeks, Bob. Job creation at young firms declines. https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/job-creation-at-young-firms-declines/. Also: “Part of the cost of these companies’ investment, along with the accompanying risk, is spread to a class of business firms that can’t afford additional cost and risk. These are young startup firms, the entrepreneurial firms that we need to nurture in order to have real and sustainable economic growth and jobs. But we can’t identify which firms will be successful. So we need an economic development strategy that creates an environment where these young entrepreneurial firms have the greatest chance to survive. The action the Wichita city council is considering this week works against entrepreneurial firms.” Weeks, Bob. Wichita to grant property and sales tax relief. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-grant-property-sales-tax-relief/.

From Pachyderm: Kansas Governor Dr. Jeff Colyer

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kansas Governor Dr. Jeff Colyer, who is also Candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded May 18, 2018.

Shownotes

From Pachyderm: Kris Kobach, Candidate for Kansas Governor

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded May 11, 2018.

Shownotes

From Pachyderm: Ken Selzer, Candidate for Kansas Governor

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Ken Selzer, Kansas Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded May 4, 2018.

Shownotes

From Pachyderm: Jim Barnett, Candidate for Kansas Governor

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Dr. Jim Barnett, candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded April 20, 2018.

Shownotes

Mayor Longwell’s pep talk

A column written by Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell ignores the reality of Wichita’s economy.

This week Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell contributed a column to the Wichita Eagle that seems to defy economic reality. 1

For example, he wrote how Wichita is a “thriving city in a brand new age of possibility.” Construction and change is everywhere, he said.

The problem is this: Even though there seems to be a lot of construction and change, Wichita isn’t thriving.

There are several ways to gauge the economic health of a city. Jobs are probably most important, especially to politicians, and jobs data is available on a frequent and timely basis. And when we look at Wichita’s growth in nonfarm jobs, we see Wichita lagging far behind the nation.

Wichita and national nonfarm employment. Click for larger.
Wichita and national nonfarm employment, ratio. Click for larger.
It wasn’t always that way. Nearby charts show the ratio of Wichita job growth to the nation. When the line is above the value one, it means Wichita was outpacing the nation.

Wichita has done that many times — growing faster than the nation. But that hasn’t been the case recently. In fact, as the charts show, the ratio of Wichita to the nation is sinking. Wichita is falling farther behind.

But despite this evidence, the mayor wrote, “In the coming years, we’re going to continue our growth pattern, and we need passionate individuals supporting and expanding upon our efforts.”

I sincerely hope the mayor is not aware of the poor performance of the Wichita-area economy. Because if he is aware, and he promises to “continue our growth pattern,” we’re in for continued trouble. Did you know that the Wichita-area economy shrank from 2015 to 2016? That is, we produced fewer goods and services in 2016 than in 2015, after accounting for inflation. 2 Is this the growth pattern the mayor promises to continue?

Finally, the mayor issued this plea: “We can’t be complacent in our comfort. We must reconcile our vibrant history with a limitless future. Let’s shed the stigma of what we have been and embrace the vibrant mantle of what we’re becoming.”

First, anyone who’s complacently comfortable is uninformed or unbelieving of the statistics regarding the Wichita economy.

Second, “what we’re becoming” is a low-growth area, falling behind the rest of the country, with the gap growing. The opposite of “vibrant.”

Then, the “stigma of what we have been” describes Mayor Longwell and other long-time officeholders and bureaucrats. It is they who have taken responsibility for the development of the Wichita-area economy. It is their decisions and policies that have led to our slow growth. They are eager to take credit for the successes we do have. But as the mayor’s ill-informed article shows, they are not willing to accept responsibility for failure, much less to even acknowledge the truth.

For other measures of the Wichita economy, see:


Notes

  1. Longwell, Jeff. All Wichitans have a part in pushing forward. Wichita Eagle, March 4, 2018. Available at http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article203559924.html.
  2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita economy shrinks. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/wichita-economy-shrinks/.

NOTA a needed voting reform

“None of the Above” voting lets voters cast a meaningful vote, and that can start changing things.

As a voter, would you like to express your displeasure with the choices on your ballot? Are you tired of voting for the lesser of two evils? Would you like to have a reason to go to the polls even though it seems the contests are already settled?

If so, then NOTA, or “None of the Above,” may appeal to you. In this system, candidates for offices are listed on your ballot. Then, an additional choice is added: “None of the Above.” (Sometimes the language is like “None of these candidates.”)

Politicians don’t like “None of the Above.” Appearing on WichitaLiberty.TV recently, John Fund told of how a politician worried that he might lose to an empty chair, meaning that “None of the Above” received more votes. Fund retorted that would be true only if the chair was better.

What would we do if “None of the Above” won the election, having received more votes than any other candidate?

Would the second-place candidate be declared the winner and take office? This is the case in Nevada. In this case, the “None of the Above” vote’s role is advisory, indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the candidates. But that’s a powerful message.

Or, would the election be declared to have no winner? Then, would a new election be held? Could the same candidates run again, or would they be eliminated? This would be disruptive and have the cost of holding a new election. But this is better than electing someone who can’t earn more votes than “None of the Above.”

Why is voter turnout so low? One common reason given is that some people don’t like any of the candidates, so they don’t vote. But if a person doesn’t vote, what message do they send? What statement do they make? Apathy? Disgust? Adding a NOTA choice to ballots lets these dissatisfied voters cast a vote, and a meaningful vote. There is no confusion. It says to the parties: “I don’t like the choices you’ve given me. Try again.”

Other people regularly vote. Perhaps a person votes because they really like one or more candidates. These people are able to make satisfying votes. Or if they really dislike a candidate, they can cast a satisfying vote against that person. But: What if the other candidate (or candidates) are no better, or have other problems? Must a person vote for the “lesser of two evils” in order to make a statement? What statement is that? In election results, a vote for candidate A from someone who really likes him is indistinguishable from a vote for candidate A solely because the other candidates are worse.

On the choices we had in the 2016 presidential election, Zach Ruby wrote in The Federalist:

Our government’s legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. But our elections are structured so that the only way to withhold consent is not to vote. Low turnout may signal our disinterest or disapproval, but one of the unqualified candidates will still become president. We need a way to withhold consent through voting. That means we need None of the Above (NOTA) to be on the ballot.

With “None of the Above,” voters can take a positive step that says, “we do not consent to these choices.”

(Ruby noted that there were candidates besides Hillary Clinton and Donald trump on most ballots. But votes for third-party candidates often feel like “wasted” votes. Ranked preference voting can help in this regard.)

A vote of protest is important. Often I’ve refrained from voting for any listed candidates because I felt none were worthy to hold office. Sometimes I’ve felt that there should not be an office (Insurance Commissioner comes to mind), so I did not cast a vote for that office. It’s my own little way of protesting. In election lingo this is called an “undervote.” It has little meaning, because people undervote for many reasons. But voting for “None of the Above” gives voters a meaningful choice in instances like this.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a choice we often face as voters. In the recent Wichita school board election, there was one contest between a thoroughly despicable incumbent and a challenger whose ideology is distinctly Marxist. Who to vote for in this instance? “None of the Above” would be a satisfying — and correct — choice. Voting for “None of the Above” sends a message that neither candidate is acceptable.

Voters who really need a “None of the Above” choice are those in Alabama. Do you want to send a liberal Democrat to the United States Senate? If your answer is no, then your only choice — if you want to vote — is to vote for a candidate facing credible charges of child molestation. That’s a choice we shouldn’t have to make. “None of the Above” voting lets voters cast a meaningful vote that says “I do not consent to these choices,” and that can start changing things.

We need NOTA, now

“None of the Above” voting has issues to resolve, but the current system has many problems.

As a voter, would you like to express your displeasure with the choices on your ballot? Are you tired of voting for the lesser of two evils? Would you like to have a reason to go to the polls even though it seems the contests are already settled?

If so, then NOTA, or “None of the Above,” may appeal to you. In this system, candidates for offices are listed on your ballot. Then, an additional choice is added: “None of the Above.”

Politicians don’t like “None of the Above.” Appearing on WichitaLiberty.TV recently, John Fund told of how a politician worried that he might lose to an empty chair, meaning that “None of the Above” received more votes. Fund retorted that would be true only if the chair was better.

But what would we do if “None of the Above” won the election, having received more votes than any other candidate?

Would the second-place candidate be declared the winner and take office? In this case, the “None of the Above” vote is reduced to an advisory, indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the candidates.

Or, would the election be declared to have no winner? Then, would a new election with different (or same) candidates ordered? This would be disruptive and have the cost of holding a new election. But this is better than electing someone who can’t garner more votes than “None of the Above.”

There is an organization promoting “None of the Above” as a choice for voters. As part of its argument, it states:

“None of the above” voters often decide to stay home instead of voting on election day. Others encourage this and suggest that it’s the way you show political disapproval in our country. This is both misguided and politically offensive. Non-voting happens for many reasons — political apathy, for example. But dissatisfaction is NOT apathy. It may in fact be the exact opposite. To suggest that dissatisfied voters should stay home and not vote hides the voice of protest. It is also tantamount to disenfranchisement.

Finally, adding a NOTA option to ballots can fill an important role in maintaining a peaceful political order. At the moment, dissatisfaction is forced out of the regular political process. It hides in the shadows, uncounted and unrecognized, masquerading as non-voting or as a vote for a “lesser of two evils” candidate. Or maybe it doesn’t hide at all. Instead it boils up in protest and the potential for violence. Providing a NOTA option can’t cure unrest, but it can provide official recognition for dissatisfaction. And when dissent has been made visible, the political establishment will be unable to deny its existence.

Voice of protest. That’s important. Often I’ve refrained from voting for any listed candidates because I felt none were worthy to hold office. It’s my own little way of protesting. In election lingo this is called an “undervote” and has little meaning, because people undervote for many reasons. But voting for “None of the above” gives voters a meaningful choice in instances like this.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a choice we often face as voters. In the upcoming race for Wichita school board, there is one contest between a thoroughly despicable incumbent and a challenger whose ideology is distinctly Marxist. Who to vote for in this instance? “None of the above” would be a satisfying — and correct — choice. Voting for “None of the Above” sends a message that neither candidate is acceptable. Instead of conceding their votes to the listed candidates, voters have a meaningful choice.

On the same day Wichitans will select three city council members. There are two candidates in each district. In one district, only one candidate is actively campaigning. In the other two, there are large imbalances in fundraising. “None of the above” works in these cases, too.

Kris Kobach at Wichita Pachyderm Club

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach addressed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday June 9, 2017, the day after he announced his candidacy for Kansas Governor in 2018. Video of this event is on YouTube here.

By Karl Peterjohn

Kris Kobach’s gubernatorial campaign heralding conservative policy options for Kansas arrived at the Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon June 9. Speaking to a packed house of Pachyderm Club members and guests, Kobach wasted little time in blasting the tax and spend climate at the Kansas statehouse that resulted in the largest tax hike in Kansas history, a $1.2 billion income tax hike that was approved this week over Governor Brownback’s veto.

The Kansas Secretary of State since 2010, Kobach began criticizing the “climate of corruption,” at the Kansas statehouse. He criticized Democrat legislative leader Senator Anthony Hensley who has been in the legislature, “since the Ford administration,” when Kobach was eight years old at that time, and today Kobach is 51 years old. Kobach said many of the legislators are well past their, “sell by date,” and used this example from the last century to call for term limits on all statewide elected officials as well as legislative term limits.

“We had an obscene tax increase,” Kobach said in criticizing the legislators who overrode Governor Brownback’s veto and approved a $1.2 billion tax hike. “Kansas does not have a revenue problem, Kansas has a spending problem.” Kobach repeatedly blasted tax and spending expansion advocates from both Republican and Democrat legislators override the gubernatorial veto.

“It’s so easy when spending other peoples’ money,” Kobach said.

Kobach blasted the retroactive tax hike feature along with raising taxes on supposedly “high income” families making only $60,000 or more, a year. He called for a rollback of this tax hike, and pointed out the failure of the conservative Republican’s Truth Caucus budget that would not have raised taxes and failed in the senate by only a couple of votes. When legislators say they had no choice (but raise taxes) they are lying.”

Besides ending the culture of corruption and the tax battle, Kobach’s third point in his campaign platform plank included immigration and ending benefits for illegal immigration, including the in-state tuition that treats out of state U.S. citizens worse than illegal immigrants who have broken U.S. law. He also wants to end “sanctuary cities/counties,” that have been adopted by some local governments in Kansas.

Kobach called for making Kansas number one for pro-life issues and praise the legislation enacted relating to abortion since 2011. A sportsman and outdoorsman, Kobach praised the excellent pro-2nd Amendment ranking Kansas has achieved but expressed a desire, if elected, to make Kansas number one in rankings related to pro-life, 2nd amendment, and fiscal issues.

The Secretary of State has just finished their ninth conviction for voter fraud and done this while his office budget has been reduced by 18 percent. Personnel costs were the major area for generating savings in the Kansas Secretary of State’s office according to Kobach. He said this was achieved by eliminating positions due to retirement or job changes, and not by any layoffs. Kobach wants to take this personnel policy and apply it as governor.

When Kobach was asked about his support for initiative and referendum for state issues, he said that while he was personally supporting this, he doubted that this could get through the legislature. He did commit to demanding that the legislature cut back benefits for illegal immigrants, and would force the legislature into acting if he is elected.

This could generate significant savings in state spending. Kobach criticized Kansas for being behind our neighboring states since Kansas spends $424 million in benefits paid for illegal immigrants. This is a net figure, that includes the $18 m paid in mostly sales taxes, paid by illegals Kobach said. 71% of illegal household receive public benefits.

In continuing his criticism of the legislature, and particularly long serving legislative leaders, Kobach called for a restriction on legislators leaving public office and immediately becoming lobbyists for their former colleagues. This is commonplace at the Kansas statehouse. Kobach wants a ban that would last several years.

Kobach expressed strong support for school choice. He said that competition is good and wanted to provide parents and students with the ability to choose the best schools that would meet their educational needs.

The success of the effort to lower income taxes in Kansas was seen by the expansion in corporate filings that demonstrate new business formation while he has been in office. Annual filings have grown to 15,000 a year, an increase of about 35 percent since 2012, the first year that this information was tracked by the secretary of state’s office.

Former Sedgwick County Republican Party chairman Bob Dool introduced Kobach at this event. Dool cited Kobach’s Kansas ties in returning to Kansas after earning degrees at Harvard; Oxford, England; and a law degree from Yale University. Kobach had also worked as a White House fellow for George W. Bush and went on to join the U.S. Justice Department where he was serving during and after the 9-11-2001 Islamic terrorist attacks. Dool will serve as the treasurer for Kobach campaign. Kobach is married with five children and has served on the Overland Park city council. Recently, President Trump appointed Kobach to help lead a federal panel to look at problems with our voting system, reduce voter fraud, and improve our elections.

Kobach has become the second announced gubernatorial candidate after Wichita businessman Wink Hartman who was the first Republican to announce his candidacy recently. Governor Sam Brownback is term limited and cannot run for re-election. While the self-described, “moderates,” do not have a GOP gubernatorial candidate in this contest as of today, it is clear that at least two conservatives, and possibly more, are going to enter the Kansas gubernatorial primary for the GOP nomination.

Kansas Special Congressional Election

An interactive map of voting in the special congressional election in Kansas district 4, for Sedgwick County only.

Intensity of red indicates higher percentage of votes for Ron Estes. By using the interactive map (link below) you may zoom and pan. Click on a precinct to see details of its vote. Precinct sizes — in terms of the number of voters — vary widely. Precincts cast anywhere from one to 950 votes.

This is data for Sedgwick County only. (It’s the only data I have at the moment.) Sedgwick County cast 67.9 percent of the votes in the district.

Click here to access the interactive map. Built with Google Fusion tables.

Kansas school employment

Kansas school employment rose slightly for the current school year, and ratios of employees to pupils fell, also slightly.

Kansas school employment. Click for larger.

Kansas school employment ratios. Click for larger.
Figures released by the Kansas State Department of Education show the number of certified employees rose slightly for the 2016-2017 school year.

The number of Pre-K through grade 12 teachers rose to 30,431 from 30,413, an increase of 0.06 percent. Certified employees rose to 41,459 from 41,405, or by 0.13 percent.1 These are not the only employees of school districts.2

Enrollment fell from 463,504 to 460,491, or 0.61 percent. As a result, the ratios of teachers to students and certified employees to students fell. The pupil-teacher ratio fell from 15.2 pupils per teacher to 15.1. The certified employee-pupil ratio fell from 11.2 to 11.1.

The relative change in enrollment and employment is not the same in every district. To help Kansas learn about employment trends in individual school districts, I’ve gathered the numbers from the Kansas State Department of Education and present them in an interactive visualization. Click here to use it.

These figures, at least on a state-wide basis, are contrary to the usual narrative, which is that school employment has been slashed, and class sizes are rising rapidly. The pupil-teacher ratios published by KSDE are not the same statistic as class sizes. But if the data shows that the ratio of pupils to teachers is largely unchanged for the past five years and class sizes are rising at the same time, we’re left to wonder what school districts are doing with teachers.


Notes

  1. According to KSDE, certified employees include Superintendent, Assoc./Asst. Superintendents, Administrative Assistants, Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors/Supervisors Spec. Ed., Directors/Supervisors of Health, Directors/Supervisors Career/Tech Ed, Instructional Coordinators/Supervisors, All Other Directors/Supervisors, Other Curriculum Specialists, Practical Arts/Career/Tech Ed Teachers, Special Ed. Teachers, Prekindergarten Teachers, Kindergarten Teachers, All Other Teachers, Library Media Specialists, School Counselors, Clinical or School Psychologists, Nurses (RN or NP only), Speech Pathologists, Audiologists, School Social Work Services, and Reading Specialists/Teachers. Teachers include Practical Arts/Vocational Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, Pre-Kindergarten Teachers, Kindergarten Teachers, Other Teachers, and Reading Specialists/Teachers. See Kansas State Department of Education. Certified Personnel. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/reports_and_publications/Personnel/Certified%20Personnel%20Cover_State%20Totals.pdf.
  2. There are also, according to KSDE, non-certified employees, which are Assistant Superintendents, Business Managers, Business Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Business Personnel, Maintenance and Operation Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Maintenance and Operation Personnel, Food Service Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Food Service Personnel, Transportation Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Transportation Personnel, Technology Director, Other Technology Personnel, Other Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Attendance Services Staff, Library Media Aides, LPN Nurses, Security Officers, Social Services Staff, Regular Education Teacher Aides, Coaching Assistant, Central Administration Clerical Staff, School Administration Clerical Staff, Student Services Clerical Staff, Special Education Paraprofessionals, Parents as Teachers, School Resource Officer, and Others. See Kansas State Department of Education. Non-Certified Personnel Report. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/reports_and_publications/Personnel/NonCertPer%20Cov_St%20Totals.pdf.

In Wichita: ‘The Future of News in Our Digital Age’

Soon in Wichita: A panel discussion with audience interaction on the topic “The Future of News in Our Digital Age.”

New Symposium is a group of Wichitans who hold regular meetings of public interest. New Symposium describes its goal is to “engage in the kind of thoughtful and respectful dialogue that is so seldom experienced in our modern world of political propaganda and social media sound-bites … but which still characterizes men and women of good will when they take the time to step back and logically think things through together.” It also uses the motto “New Symposium: Rescuing Discourse from the Political Parties.”

New Symposium’s next event is on January 31, and I will be a symposiast. This event is a public forum on the topic “The Future of News in Our Digital Age.” It is a panel discussion with audience interaction.

This event will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. The location is Social Networking Technologies, Inc., located in the High Touch Building at 110 S. Main in downtown Wichita, Kansas. (Link to Google map.)

There is no cost to attend this event.

Panelists are

  • W. Davis (Buzz) Merritt, Former Senior Vice President and Senior Editor of The Wichita Eagle; Adjunct professor of journalism at University of Kansas
  • Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute and Board Member of The Sentinel, a new online news service
  • Mike Marlett, Former owner of local, weekly newspaper F-5; current manager of website content at Wichita State University
  • Mark McCormick, Former professional journalist and current Executive Director of The Kansas African American Museum
  • Bob Weeks, Publisher of the Voice for Liberty at wichitaliberty.org

For updates and dialogue on the symposium, see
newsymposium.blogspot.com. Much more information may be found there. In particular, questions for consideration at this event include:

  • What are the motives and incentives that shape the “news” produced by the different forms of media (some more centralized, traditional, or corporate than others)? What should they be?
  • Given the internet’s enormous potential for misinformation, how can one find “just the facts”? When everyman’s a journalist, what happens to accountability for telling the truth?
  • Has the centralized, legacy media been caught up in the hyper-polarization of American politics? If so, is there a remedy? Can we have tough, independent investigative journalism that does not start with presupposition and prejudice?
  • What is the future of explanatory journalism that emphasizes nuance and context in a digital age in which speed and headlines are prized? How could Twitter and Snapchat ever properly inform?
  • Are digital media/communications making us all attention-deficit? Are we too easily “informed”?