Voice For Liberty

Search results for: “Bill Warren”

  • Wichita City Council to consider entrenching power of special interest groups

    Wichita City Council to consider entrenching power of special interest groups

    city-council-chambers-sign-800On Tuesday the Wichita City Council will consider a resolution in support of the status quo for city elections. Which is to say, the council will likely express its support for special interest groups whose goals are in conflict with the wellbeing of the public.

    The proposed resolution expresses support for retaining the present system in which city council and school board members are elected in non-partisan elections held in the spring. Candidates for all other offices (county commissioner, district court judge, district attorney, county clerk, county treasurer, register of deeds, sheriff, state representative, state senator, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, insurance commissioner, state board of education member, president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, etc.) compete in partisan elections held in August and November.

    Yes, the proposed resolution is full of language supporting lofty ideals. It mentions local control, concern over low voter turnout, the complexity of making changes, partisan politics, and even the Hatch Act, whatever that is.

    (The Hatch Act restricts the ability of federal executive branch employees and certain state and local government employees to participate in some political activities, such as running for office in partisan elections. Non-partisan elections — that’s okay. The city is concerned that this could “disqualify many local candidates and office holders.” As if anyone already working for government also should also be an officeholder, non-partisan election or not.)

    Why should we be concerned? Why would the city council support the current system of spring elections? Doesn’t the city council always act in the best interests of the body politic?

    Here’s the answer, quite simply: In the spring elections, voter turnout is low. This makes it easier for special interest groups to influence the election outcomes. These special interest groups are not your friends (unless you are a member of one of the special groups).

    Voter turnout is low in spring elections. Really low. I’ve gathered statistics for elections in Sedgwick County, and these numbers show that voter turnout in spring elections is much lower than in fall elections. (For these statistics I count the August primary as part of the fall election cycle.) Since 2000, turnout for fall elections, both primary and general, has been 44 percent. Over the same period, spring elections turnout has been 18 percent.

    Remarkably, a special Wichita citywide election in February 2012 with just one question on the ballot had voter turnout of 13.7 percent. One year earlier, in April 2011, the spring general election had four of six city council districts contested and a citywide mayoral election. Turnout was 12.8 percent. That’s less than the turnout for a single-question election on year later.

    The problem of low voter participation in off-cycle elections is not limited to Sedgwick County or Kansas. In her paper “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups,” Sarah F. Anzia writes “A well developed literature has shown that the timing of elections matters a great deal for voter turnout. … When cities and school districts hold elections at times other than state and national elections, voter turnout is far lower than when those elections are held at the same time as presidential or gubernatorial elections.”

    In the same paper, Anzia explains that when voter participation is low, it opens the door for special interest groups to dominate the election: “When an election is separated from other elections that attract higher turnout, many eligible voters abstain, but interest group members that have a large stake in the election outcome turn out at high rates regardless of the increase in the cost of voting. Moreover, interest groups’ efforts to strategically mobilize supportive voters have a greater impact on election outcomes when overall turnout is low. Consequently, the electoral influence of interest groups is greater in off-cycle elections than in on-cycle elections. As a result, the policy made by officials elected in off-cycle elections should be more favorable to dominant interest groups than policy made by officials elected in on-cycle elections.” (Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups, Sarah F. Anzia, Stanford University, Journal of Politics, April 2011, Vol. 73 Issue 2, p 412-427, version online here.)

    Moving the spring elections so they are held in conjunction with the fall state and national elections will help reduce the electoral power and influence of special interest groups.

    An example of special interests influencing elections

    In January 2013 candidates for Wichita City Council filed campaign finance reports covering calendar year 2012. That year was the ramp-up period for elections that were held in February and March 2013. Two filings in particular illustrate the need for campaign finance and election reform in Wichita and Kansas.

    Two incumbents, both who had indicated their intent to run in the spring 2013 elections, received campaign contributions in 2012 from only two sources: A group of principals and executives of Key Construction, and another group associated with theater owner Bill Warren.

    The incumbent candidates receiving these contributions are Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) and Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita).

    Except for $1.57 in unitemized contributions to Clendenin, these two groups accounted for all contributions received by these two incumbents during an entire year. Those associated with Key Construction gave a total of $7,000. Williams received $4,000, and $3,000 went to Clendenin. Those associated with Warren gave $5,000, all to Clendenin.

    You may be wondering: Do these two groups have an extraordinarily keen interest in Wichita city government that’s not shared by anyone else?

    Yes they do, and it’s not benevolent. Both have benefited from the cronyism of the Wichita City Council, in particular members Williams and Clendenin. Both groups are symptomatic of the problem of special interests influencing low-turnout elections. See Campaign contributions show need for reform in Wichita for details.

    [gview file=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Opposition-of-Legislation-regarding-Municipal-Elections.pdf”]

  • Old Town Cinema TIF update

    Old Town Cinema TIF update

    A Wichita city report provides a somber look at the finances of a tax increment financing district.

    The City of Wichita Department of Finance has prepared an update on the financial performance of the Old Town Cinema Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. There’s not much good news in this document. The financial performance would be worse if the city had included the costs of the no-interest and low-interest loan made to the owners of property in this TIF district. But it doesn’t appear that those costs are included. Here’s an excerpt from the report:

    In 2000, the appraised value of the southeast retail building and the Warren Theatre declined 12% (from $4.5 to $3.9 million) and 33% from ($4.4 to $2.9 million), respectively. These declines occurred as a result of property tax appeals, which were made by the TIF District’s primary developer. In addition, the total appraised value of the northeast and southeast retail buildings and the Warren Theatre remains more than $3.6 million below estimates in the project plan and overall values have not yet recovered to pre-2009 levels.

    The “property tax appeals” referred to in this paragraph are the doing of David Burk. The Wichita Eagle reported at the time: “Downtown Wichita’s leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city’s knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney.”

    Several city officials expressed varying degrees of outrage with Burk’s action, with the city manager telling the Eagle that anyone has the right to appeal their taxes, but he added that ‘no doubt that defeats the purpose of the TIF.’”

    Since then the city has granted several forms of subsidy to Burk and his partners.

    The report from the finance department also told of problems with parking revenue:

    Parking Revenue – The project plan assumed sufficient parking revenue cash flow over a fifteen-year period to provide $1.1 million towards principal debt obligations, assuming an interest rate of 4.5%. The Old Town Cinema TIF Fund has received substantially less parking revenue than was expected in the project plan. In some years, the TIF Fund has received no revenue from parking, and the highest amount received in any year was $51,130 (in 2008). From 2007, when the District first began receiving parking revenue, through 2013, a total of $153,130 in parking revenue has been transferred to the TIF Fund. Based on historical experience, additional parking revenue is not assumed and total parking revenue from 2004 to 2019 is conservatively projected at $153,130.

    Later on, the report holds this:

    Parking revenue collections are also substantially less than projected, because fees have not been increased as originally planned. The City’s general parking fee, which predates the Old Town Cinema TIF District, started at $7.50 per parking space per month. The fee was to increase to $25 per month over an eighteen-year period, with increases starting in approximately1996, according to Property Management. Fee increases never occurred, which were needed to pay for City parking activities. The general City fee differed slightly from that originally charged in the Old Town Cinema District, because the District initially charged a $10 per month fee, but this was reduced in about 2009 to $7.50 per month consistent with the parking fee charged elsewhere in the City, again according to Property Management.

    The report also contains several financial statements. These statements do not contain a form of off-the-books support given to this TIF district. That was the no-interest and low-interest loan made to the Warren Theater, estimated to cost the city $1.2 million.

    Click here to open the city’s report in a new window.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Thursday May 10, 2012

    Kansas tax reform. A message from Americans for Prosperity, Kansas: “‘Today’s vote on a much-needed tax reform bill will provide an immediate boost to Kansas families and businesses,’ said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. ‘The approved tax bill cuts the income tax for Kansas families and small businesses, which is certainly good news for taxpayers. The current leadership of the state Senate helped lead Kansas down a path of economic destruction as indicated by the past decade being one of lost private sector jobs, stagnant population growth, and taxpayers fleeing to other states. Yet in spite of all the evidence pointing to the failure of the tax and spend approach, the actions of Senate leadership today indicated that they wanted more of the same. Today’s action by a majority of the House led by leadership was a step in the right direction to reverse the failed economic policies of the past. We applaud the leaders of the Kansas House for this bold move toward tax relief.’”

    School funding. Two Wichita legislators on Kansas school funding. First, Representative Jim Ward: “The question is do we spend money on tax cuts for rich people and out-of-state corporations or do we spend money restoring the cuts to education.” … Then Senator Jean Schodorf: “Schodorf said business as usual is not funding schools. ‘That has become kind of the status quo in the legislature, and this year we desperately need to get a funding increase for schools.’” I wonder if either of these two legislators, both of whom hold leadership positions on education committees, know that this will likely be a record-setting year for school spending in Kansas, when all sources are considered? Fighting for school funding is a distraction from the reforms that Kansas schools really need.

    Separation of art and state. David Boaz, writing at “Room for Debate” at the New York Times: “What do art, music, and religion have in common? They all have the power to touch us in the depths of our souls. As one theater director said, ‘Art has power. It has the power to sustain, to heal, to humanize … to change something in you. It’s a frightening power, and also a beautiful power. … And it’s essential to a civilized society.’ Which is precisely why art, music, and religion should be kept separate from the state. Government involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.” Read more at Separation of Art and State. We failed this important test in Kansas, as funding for arts is now a concern for the state.

    Stimulus spending. Robert J. Barro in the Wall Street Journal, available at the Hoover Institution: “The weak economic recovery in the U.S. and the even weaker performance in much of Europe have renewed calls for ending budget austerity and returning to larger fiscal deficits. … This viewpoint is dangerously unstable. Every time heightened fiscal deficits fail to produce desirable outcomes, the policy advice is to choose still larger deficits. If, as I believe to be true, fiscal deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become negative, the results from following this policy advice are persistently low economic growth and an exploding ratio of public debt to GDP. The last conclusion is not just academic, because it fits with the behavior of Japan over the past two decades.” On the idea of Keynesian solutions to economic problems: “Despite the lack of evidence, it is remarkable how much allegiance the Keynesian approach receives from policy makers and economists. I think it’s because the Keynesian model addresses important macroeconomic policy issues and is pedagogically beautiful, no doubt reflecting the genius of Keynes. The basic model — government steps in to spend when others won’t — can be presented readily to one’s mother, who is then likely to buy the conclusions. … Keynes worshipers’ faith in this model has actually been strengthened by the Great Recession and the associated financial crisis. Yet the empirical support for all this is astonishingly thin. The Keynesian model asks one to turn economic common sense on its head in many ways. For instance, more saving is bad because of the resultant drop in consumer demand, and higher productivity is bad because the increased supply of goods tends to lower the price level, thereby raising the real value of debt. Meanwhile, transfer payments that subsidize unemployment are supposed to lower unemployment, and more government spending is good even if it goes to wasteful projects.” See Stimulus Spending Keeps Failing.

    Drug court to be Pachyderm topic. This Friday (May 11th) the Wichita Pachyderm Club Judge Joe Kisner of the Sedgwick County Drug Court speaking on “A new approach to an old problem.” The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. … The club has an exceptional lineup of future speakers as follows: On May 18th: Paul Soutar, Reporter for Kansas Watchdog, speaking on “The evolution of journalism and how the new media empowers citizens.” … On May 25th: Ron Estes, State Treasurer of Kansas, speaking on “A report from the Kansas Treasurer.” … On June 1st: Gary Oborny, Chairman/CEO Occidental Management and Real Estate Development, CCIM Designated member of the Storm Water Advisory Board to the City of Wichita, speaking on “What is the economic impact of EPA mandates on storm water quality in Wichita?”

    Elizabeth Warren. Writes Ann Coulter: “For liberals, it should be a mortal sin: Elizabeth Warren cheated on affirmative action.” A funny — and sad, because it tells us a lot about our country — column on how Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senatorial Candidate, apparently lied about being a member of a minority group (being 1/32 Cherokee) and how universities lapped it up.

    Failure of socialism to be shown. The Wichita Chapter Meeting of Americans for Prosperity Foundation continues its video presentation of Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” series. The next episode to be shown is “The Failure of Socialism,” followed by a group discussion on Monday, May 14, 2012 at the Alford Branch Wichita Public Library, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. There is no admission charge. RSVP not required. The Lionel D. Alford Library located at 3447 S. Meridian in Wichita. The library is just north of the I-235 exit on Meridian. For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

    Yes we can! No they can’t! “It’s a fatal conceit. The politicians in there think they can run our economy, run our lives. But no — they can’t.” That’s John Stossel standing in front of the U.S. Capitol at the start of a television program featuring his new book No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed. The complete show is available on the free hulu service at Stossel – Thursday, Apr 12, 2012.

  • Kansas House committee assignments for 2019

    Kansas House committee assignments for 2019

    From the office of Kansas House of Representatives Speaker Ron Ryckman, here are committee assignments for the 2019 session of the Kansas Legislature. The session starts Monday January 14, 2019.

    9:00 AM Committees

    Appropriations (112-N): Troy Waymaster, Chair; Kyle Hoffman, Vice Chair; Kathy Wolfe Moore, Ranking Minority; John Alcala; Barbara Ballard; Tom Burroughs; Sydney Carlin; Will Carpenter; J.R. Claeys; Susan Concannon; Willie Dove; Shannon Francis; Henry Helgerson; Steven Johnson; Brenda Landwehr; Stephen Owens; Brett Parker; Richard Proehl; Ken Rahjes; Brad Ralph; Bill Sutton; Sean Tarwater; and Kristey Williams.

    Federal and State Affairs (346-S): John Barker, Chair; Francis Awerkamp, Vice Chair; Louis Ruiz, Ranking Minority; Tory Arnberger; Jesse Burris; Blake Carpenter; Stephanie Clayton; John Eplee; Renee Erickson; Broderick Henderson; Boog Highberger; Michael Houser; Susan Humphries; Trevor Jacobs; Jim Karleskint; Jan Kessinger; Les Mason; Nancy Lusk; John Resman; Eric Smith; Jerry Stogsdill; Adam Thomas; and Brandon Woodard.

    Rural Revitalization (582-N): Don Hineman, Chair; Adam Smith, Vice Chair; Jason Probst, Ranking Minority; Dave Baker; Ken Collins; Owen Donohoe; Cheryl Helmer; Larry Hibbard; Ron Highland; Cindy Holscher; Tim Hodge; Eileen Horn; Russ Jennings; Monica Murnan; Bill Pannbacker; Jene Vickrey; and Paul Waggoner.

    Energy, Utilities, and Telecommunications (T/Th) (281-N): Joe Seiwert, Chair; Mark Schreiber, Vice Chair; Annie Kuether, Ranking Minority; Emil Bergquist; John Carmichael; Ken Corbet; Tom Cox; Leo Delperdang; Stan Frownfelter; Randy Garber; Jim Gartner; Nick Hoheisel; Marty Long; Cindy Neighbor; Mark Samsel; Jack Thimesch; and Kellie Warren.

    Financial Institutions and Pensions (M/W) (281-N): Jim Kelly, Chair; Boyd Orr, Vice Chair; Gail Finney, Ranking Minority; David Benson; Doug Blex; Suzi Carlson; Tom Cox; Leo Delperdang; Brenda Dietrich; Stan Frownfelter; Megan Lynn; Leonard Mastroni; Bill Rhiley; John Toplikar; Barb Wasinger; Virgil Weigel; and Rui Xu.

    Local Government (M/W) (218-N): Kent Thompson, Chair; Emil Bergquist, Vice Chair; Pam Curtis, Ranking Minority; Mike Amyx; Elizabeth Bishop; Michael Capps; Lonnie Clark; Charlotte Esau; Ron Howard; Greg Lewis; Marty Long; J.C. Moore; and Jarrod Ousley.

    Veterans (T/Th) (218-N): Lonnie Clark, Chair; Ron Ellis, Vice Chair; Virgil Weigel, Ranking Minority; Chris Croft; Diana Dierks; Brenda Dietrich; David French; Ron Howard; Tom Phillips; Jeff Pittman; Susan Ruiz; Ponka-We Victors; and John Wheeler.

    1:30 PM Committees

    Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget (142-S): Willie Dove, Chair; Larry Hibbard, Vice Chair; Sydney Carlin, Ranking Minority; Lonnie Clark; Jim Gartner; Trevor Jacobs; Greg Lewis; Boyd Orr; and 58th House District Representative.

    Children and Seniors (346-S): Susan Concannon, Chair; Susan Humphries, Vice Chair; Jarrod Ousley, Ranking Minority; Suzi Carlson; Diana Dierks; Charlotte Esau; Randy Garber; Leonard Mastroni; Nancy Lusk; Cindy Neighbor; Bill Rhiley; Susan Ruiz; and Paul Waggoner.

    Commerce, Labor, and Economic Development (112-N): Sean Tarwater, Chair; Ken Corbet, Vice Chair; Stan Frownfelter, Ranking Minority; Tom Burroughs; Will Carpenter; Chris Croft; Pam Curtis; Ron Highland; Don Hineman; Kyle Hoffman; Jan Kessinger; Marty Long; Les Mason; Jason Probst; Brad Ralph; Louis Ruiz; and Kristey Williams.

    Corrections/Juvenile Justice (152-S): Russ Jennings, Chair; Leo Delperdang, Vice Chair; Boog Highberger, Ranking Minority; John Carmichael; David French; Annie Kuether; Stephen Owens; Fred Patton; Bill Pannbacker; John Resman; Eric Smith; Virgil Weigel; and John Wheeler.

    Education (218-N): Steve Huebert, Chair; Brenda Dietrich, Vice Chair; Jim Ward, Ranking Minority; David Benson; Stephanie Clayton; Renee Erickson; Cheryl Helmer; Steven Johnson; Jim Karleskint; Mark Samsel; Mark Schreiber; Adam Smith; Jerry Stogsdill; Adam Thomas; John Toplikar; Jene Vickrey; and Rui Xu

    Health and Human Services (546-S): Brenda Landwehr, Chair; John Eplee, Vice Chair; Monica Murnan, Ranking Minority; Tory Arnberger; John Barker; Emil Bergquist; Elizabeth Bishop; Doug Blex; Ken Collins; Ron Ellis; Broderick Henderson; Cindy Holscher; Eileen Horn; Ron Howard; Jim Kelly; Megan Lynn; and Kellie Warren.

    Higher Education Budget (281-N): Ken Rahjes, Chair; Tom Phillips, Vice Chair; Brandon Whipple, Ranking Minority; Jesse Burris; Blake Carpenter; J.C. Moore; Brett Parker; Barb Wasinger; and Brandon Woodard.

    Transportation (582-N): Richard Proehl, Chair; Jack Thimesch, Vice Chair; Henry Helgerson, Ranking Minority; Francis Awerkamp; Dave Baker; Barbara Ballard; J.R. Claeys; Tom Cox; Shannon Francis; Nick Hoheisel; Michael Houser; KC Ohaebosim; Jeff Pittman; Joe Seiwert; Bill Sutton; Kent Thompson; and Ponka-We Victors.

    3:30 PM Committees

    Agriculture (582-N): Ron Highland, Chair; Eric Smith, Vice Chair; Sydney Carlin, Ranking Minority; Doug Blex; Larry Hibbard; Eileen Horn; Trevor Jacobs; Jim Karleskint; Greg Lewis; Boyd Orr; Bill Pannbacker; Jason Probst; Mark Schreiber; Joe Seiwert; Kent Thompson; Virgil Weigel; and Rui Xu.

    General Government Budget (281-N): J.R. Claeys, Chair; Tory Arnberger, Vice Chair; Tom Burroughs, Ranking Minority; Mike Amyx; Leo Delperdang; David French; Cheryl Helmer; Broderick Henderson; and Marty Long.

    Judiciary (346-S): Fred Patton, Chair; Brad Ralph, Vice Chair; John Carmichael, Ranking Minority; Emil Bergquist; Jesse Burris; Pam Curtis; Randy Garber; Boog Highberger; Nick Hoheisel;
    Susan Humphries; Russ Jennings; Annie Kuether; KC Ohaebosim; Stephen Owens; Mark Samsel; Kellie Warren; and John Wheeler.

    K-12 Education Budget (546-S): Kristey Williams, Chair; Kyle Hoffman, Vice Chair; Valdenia Winn, Ranking Minority; Brenda Dietrich; Renee Erickson; Cindy Holscher; Steve Huebert; Brenda Landwehr; Nancy Lusk; Adam Smith; Sean Tarwater; Adam Thomas; and Jim Ward.

    Social Services Budget (144-S): Will Carpenter, Chair; Leonard Mastroni, Vice Chair; Barbara Ballard, Ranking Minority; Suzi Carlson; Owen Donohoe; Ron Howard; Megan Lynn; Monica Murnan; and Susan Ruiz.

    Taxation (112-N): Steven Johnson, Chair; Les Mason, Vice Chair; Jim Gartner, Ranking Minority; John Alcala; Dave Baker; John Barker; Stephanie Clayton; Susan Concannon; Ken Corbet; Chris Croft; John Eplee; Henry Helgerson; Don Hineman; Jim Kelly; Tom Phillips; Richard Proehl; Ken Rahjes; Jerry Stogsdill; Jack Thimesch; John Toplikar; Barb Wasinger; Kathy Wolfe Moore; and 58th House District Representative.

    Transportation and Public Safety Budget (142-S): Shannon Francis, Chair; John Resman, Vice Chair; Jeff Pittman, Ranking Minority; David Benson; Ron Ellis; Charlotte Esau; Michael Houser; Jan Kessinger; and Ponka-We Victors.

    Elections (T/Th) (212B-N): Bill Sutton, Chair; Blake Carpenter, Vice Chair; Brett Parker, Ranking Minority; Frances Awerkamp; Lonnie Clark; Ken Collins; Willie Dove; Tim Hodge; J.C. Moore, Jarrod Ousley; Bill Rhiley; Paul Waggoner; and Brandon Whipple.

    Insurance (M/W) (212B-N): Jene Vickrey, Chair; Tom Cox, Vice Chair; Cindy Neighbor, Ranking Minority; Francis Awerkamp; Elizabeth Bishop; Michael Capps; Blake Carpenter; Ken Collins; Diana Dierks; Willie Dove; Gail Finney; Stan Frownfelter; J.C. Moore; Bill Rhiley; Bill Sutton; Paul Waggoner; and Brandon Woodard.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday December 9, 2011

    Ethanol subsidy. According to Wichita Eagle reporting, the head of an ethanol trade group says the subsidy for ethanol will likely disappear after January 1, but the change might be good for the industry. It has to do with image, said the speaker. The subsidy the speaker mentioned is in the form of a tax credit, and is one of the programs that would be eliminated by proposed legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of Wichita. His bill would end tax credits for all forms of energy. … The production tax credit is just one of three government interventions that benefit ethanol. Besides the tax credit, we should also ask for the end of mandates for ethanol use, and an end to the tariff on imported ethanol. We also need to ask for the end of interventions aimed at benefiting the cellulosic ethanol industry, like the $132.4 million loan guarantee for such a plant in Kansas.

    Cronyist Warren Buffet. “Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings company has agreed to buy a giant, 550-megawatt photovoltaic farm currently under construction in San Luis Obispo County for $2 billion, giving a huge boost to the solar industry that could spur investment by other major players.” Concludes John Hinderaker of Powerline Blog: “Meanwhile, I am warming up to the idea that Warren Buffett should pay more in taxes. I would settle for just getting his federal subsidies back.” More at Crony Capitalism, Episode #…What Are We Up To Now?

    Natural gas subsidies for Pickens. While on the topic of energy and harmful subsidies, Timothy P. Carney of the Washington Examiner provides an update on H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NATGAS act. The bill provides a variety of subsidies, implemented through tax credits, to producers and users of natural gas. The goal is to promote the use of natural gas as the fuel the nation uses for transportation. … Carney explains the personal financial of the bill’s backer, energy investor T. Boone Pickens. He holds options on 15 million shares of a company known as Clean Energy Fuels. These options expire on December 28th, and their value would skyrocket if the NATGAS bill can pass by then. … Carney notes the opposition to this bill from Wichita-based Koch Industries. As a large producer of fertilizer, the price of a key input — natural gas — would likely increase if NATGAS passes. But we all ought to worry about increases in the price of fertilizer, which would like lead to higher grocery prices. These price increases harm low income families hardest.

    Planning grant to be topic of meeting. On Monday December 12th Americans for Prosperity Foundation will feature Sedgwick County Commission Member Richard Ranzau speaking on the topic “The $1.5 million dollar Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) HUD Sustainable Development Planning Grant: Economic Development or Economic Destruction?” Some background on this item may be found at Sedgwick County considers a planning grant. This free event is from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Lionel D. Alford Library located at 3447 S. Meridian in Wichita. The library is just north of the I-235 exit on Meridian. For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

    Tilting at wind turbines. “Switching from conventional sources of electricity like coal and natural gas to renewables like wind and solar, our elected leaders tell us, will reduce pollution, advance renewable technology and spark a green jobs revolution. Is renewable energy really a green pathway to a brighter economic future? Or is it nothing more than a heavily subsidized impossible dream?” Reason TV takes a look at wind energy in the video Tilting at Wind Turbines: Should the Government Subsidize Renewable Energy? Locally, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer promotes manufacturing of wind power machinery as good for Wichita’s economic development, and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback supports renewable energy standards for Kansas.

  • Kansas Blog Roundup for July 3, 2008

    Even with a holiday-shortened week, there was quite a bit of activity in Kansas blogs.

    At the Kansas Republican Assembly blog, the post Sebelius: Slattery needs help raises questions about U.S. Senate candidate Jim Slattery’s acquisition of certain email addresses, and the etiquette of using them. In Democratic delegate shunned for endorsing McCain over Obama, the anonymous writer of this blog wonders whether the Democratic Party is really the big tent party.

    The Kansas Trunkline reports that U.S. House of Representatives candidate Nancy Boyda is not shy with her support for increasing motor fuel taxes in Nancy Boyda: Yes, new taxes! Also, reporting on Kansas Republican Party chairman Kris Kobach and his remarks in Slattery fundraising wilting, DSCC bailing.

    This week, the Kansas Meadowlark has posts on judicial nominating commissions in Kansas. First, can campaign contributions of $13,000 to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and covering some airplane expenses purchase a seat on the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission? The post Did $13,000 given to Gov. Sebelius play part in Supreme Court Nominating Commission appointment? answers. Second, the title of the post Political makeup of Third District Court Nominating Commission doesn’t reflect district? asks the question that needs answers. This district is Shawnee County, where Topeka is located.

    The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission seems to fall short of fulfilling its duties in these two posts: Kansas Ethics Commission can’t find political activist, who didn’t file PAC report, but newspapers can? and Kansas Ethics Commission ignores missing $25,000 payment by PAC?

    The anonymous blogger Stay Red Kansas supplies in Talk around T-Town some political gossip obtained from some “power players.” It’s hard to know how much weight to give to posts like this from an anonymous blogger. Is the information real, or just the sowing of the seeds of rumor? Unless we know who the blogger is, or unless you read the blog enough to form an opinion as to the writer’s reliability, it’s hard to treat these posts seriously.

    In the post Is Congress shilling their constituents?, The Patriots (news from citizen advocates) blogger Allen Williams wonders about U.S. Energy policy.

    Kansas Federalist blogger Currie Myers comments on the difference between Iowa Floods versus New Orleans Floods.

    At the Joyful Cynic, the very fine post Charity at a Distance explains the difference between charity and “legally mandated charity,” although I believe Sharon is too mild in describing government activity as anything resembling charity.

    Just when I think I’ve become aware of all blogs with a Kansas connection, I find out that I’ve been missing out on a very good blog. The Blog About All Things MBM (market-based management) is a blog that I’m sorry I’ve overlooked. One of its contributors is a Kansan, and market-based management was developed by Wichitan Charles Koch. The post Did Adam Smith Hate Businesspeople? contains the sentence “MBM considers any form of political profit completely unacceptable.” When you read my Voice For Liberty in Wichita post Wichita and the Old Town Warren Theater Loan, you’ll realize why I am glad I found this blog.

    At The Quite Conservative, the post When the Republic Hung by a Thread comments on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the right to bear arms.

    At In Media Res the interesting post Ten Things I Like About Canada (In Honor of Canada Day) contains this good thing about Canada: “Relative avoidance of sugar processed from high fructose corn syrup.” Why in the U.S. do we use corn syrup instead of sugar? Do government tariffs have anything to do with it? If you don’t like the government meddling with the way we sweeten soft drinks, how will you like another “good thing” in Canada, which is number four in this list: socialized medicine.

    At the Voice For Liberty in Wichita, Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network contributed the article Socialism And Big Government Expand In Kansas.

    In Wichita, big news this week was the Wichita City Council’s giveaway to a theater owner. My remarks to the council are in the post Wichita and the Old Town Warren Theater Loan. John Todd testified too; his remarks are here: Wichita Old Town Warren Theater Public Hearing Remarks. Some follow-up analysis is here: In Wichita, is Economic Development Proven Public Policy?, and you may read of Wichita city council member Jeff Longwell’s unfortunately low opinion of Wichitan’s interest in these civic matters in the post Wichita Council Member Jeff Longwell: We Can, and Do, Read.

    Some Wichita news media outlets revealed some sloppy reporting and bias in these posts: Wichita Business Journal: Where is the Increasing Enrollment in Wichita Schools?, Wichita Business Journal: Please Explain the Wichita School Bond Impact, and Wichita Eagle Reporting Bias.

    Some coverage of a candidate forum is here: Kansas School Board Candidate Forum, June 30, 2008.

    How is former Wichita public school superintendent Winston Brooks doing at his new post in Albuquerque? Someone there doesn’t have too high of an opinion: In Albuquerque, Someone Already Doesn’t Like Winston Brooks.

    An important series of posts at the Voice For Liberty in Wichita deal with the involvement of Earthjustice, a radical environmentalist group, in Kansas energy policy. This, to my knowledge, has not been covered by Kansas news media util very recently. The post Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius at Earthjustice reports on the governor’s recent talk an at Earthjustice event. Earthjustice in Kansas: What is Their Agenda? contains a fellow blogger’s interpretation of the motives of Earthjustice. In Earthjustice in Kansas: The Press Release I report on how I have made a records request to the governor’s office so that Kansans can learn more about the activities of this extremist group and its relationship to our governor.

  • The Democrats continue unjustified attacks on taxpayers and job creators

    The following article by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, including the Wichita metropolitan area, explains — yet again — how ridiculous it is for President Barack Obama and others to attack Wichita-based Koch Industries on the Keystone XL pipeline issue. Pompeo explains that Koch has no financial interest in the pipeline, what “intervenor” status means, and who really stands to benefit if the pipeline is not built. Pompeo hints at who it is, but I’ll be more direct: Warren Buffet. A news article that explains how Warren will personally benefit from blocking the Keystone XL pipeline is Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Pipeline Winners.

    The Democrats continue unjustified attacks on taxpayers and job creators

    By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo

    The President and his allies, including those in Congress, have shown what a nasty, personal, and abusive re-election campaign we are about to experience. A recent sideshow in my committee in Congress provides yet another clear and shocking example.

    A recent letter from Representatives Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush, both Democrats, demanded a live witness and testimony from “a representative of Koch Industries” at a hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline, scheduled to be held just two days later. The frivolous nature of the request is proven by that plainly unreasonable deadline. But the partisan tactics go far beyond that.

    Even if Koch Industries had a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline, what possibly could be wrong with that? Perhaps more importantly, under what circumstances would such an interest be worthy of a congressional inquisition? Charles Koch and David Koch, co-owners of Koch Industries, are citizens, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and employers. Their companies employ nearly 50,000 people in the U.S. alone. The company maintains its headquarters in the district I represent, employing 2,600 great Kansans. The company and its employees are among the most hard-working and generous in our community. The company has never been bailed out by the American taxpayers. And given that Americans are desperate for jobs, we should be begging entrepreneurs to look for new opportunities, not attacking them simply because their companies might make a profit.

    The facts are clear: Koch Industries does not have a financial stake in the pipeline — why, therefore, should its officials become part of the all-too-familiar congressional committee circus? The facts are straightforward and a matter of public record. Koch Industries has repeatedly stated that it does not have a financial stake in the pipeline: It does not own the pipeline, it has no role in the pipeline’s design, it is not one of the shippers who have signed contracts to use the pipeline, and it will not build the pipeline.

    Democrats dug deep for some excuse to attempt to haul Koch officials in for a public flogging. What did they find? A 2009 attempt by a Koch subsidiary to obtain “intervenor” status in a Canadian legal proceeding, in order to track the approval process for the pipeline. Wishing to know the fate of the pipeline, and having an interest in whether or not the pipeline is built — as thousands of frustrated American workers and consumers do — obviously does not amount to a financial interest in the pipeline’s construction. Indeed, the Sierra Club of Canada applied to “intervene” in the same proceeding. Notably, no one has alleged that Congress should investigate the Sierra Club’s interest in the pipeline project. So the “intervenor” ploy is a patent sham, and provides no basis for harassing Koch Industries.

    It is also difficult to believe that Members of Congress really think that a particular company’s asserted financial interest in a project is, or should be, relevant to the merits of that project. It becomes still harder to believe, given the decision to target only Koch Industries and the Kochs — and no other company or individual. Doubtless many companies and individuals stand to benefit, or to be harmed, depending on whether President Obama’s decision to delay the pipeline is allowed to stand. News accounts have mentioned a number of those who might reap financial windfalls from the pipeline’s demise, including at least one of President Obama’s most prominent supporters and donors. (Hint: His secretary was the President’s highly visible prop at the State of the Union address.) But two congressmen directed their attention exclusively toward the Kochs, who — as successful businessmen and outspoken critics of the President’s job-killing, statist programs — have been targets for the Administration and its allies for many months.

    Indeed, the very first line of President Obama’s very first campaign advertisement for the 2012 election attacks the Koch brothers. And liberal blogs and publications have published countless slanted pieces on Koch Industries, heavy on innuendo and light on facts. The Obama Administration has long been criticized for maintaining a de facto “enemies list” of its perceived political opponents, whether they are respected Supreme Court Justices, disfavored reporters, or private citizens who just want to keep their own doctors. The Democrats’ obsession with the Kochs as a political target is, indeed, additional evidence of a truly Nixonian approach to politics. That the Obama Administration and its allies use private citizens as symbols to be attacked and vilified is both unfair and deeply threatening to our civic life and the rule of law.

    America deserves better from its elected officials. To be sure, the serious challenges facing the country often generate heated discussion and disagreement. But there is no justification for Democrats who want to haul American citizens before Congress for the exclusive purpose of political abuse. Congressional hearings should not be hijacked by naked political opportunism; legitimate business creators should not be vilified; and Congress should focus on the many policy questions before it, rather than wasting time in an illegitimate pursuit of the Administration’s perceived “enemies.”

    Mr. Pompeo represents the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas. He serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A version of this article appeared at Politico.

  • Wichita, again, fails at government transparency

    Wichita, again, fails at government transparency

    At a time when Wichita city hall needs to cultivate the trust of citizens, another incident illustrates the entrenched attitude of the city towards its citizens. Despite the proclamations of the mayor and manager, the city needs a change of attitude towards government transparency and citizens’ right to know.

    At its May 20, 2014 meeting the Wichita City Council considered approval of a sublease by Shannon No. 2, LLC. The subject property had received subsidy from the city under an economic development program, which is why council approval of the sublease was required. I’ll cover the economics of the lease and its importance to public policy in another article. For now, the important issue is the attitude of the city towards government transparency and citizen participation.

    Wichita city council agenda packet, as provided to the public.
    Wichita city council agenda packet, as provided to the public.
    In the agenda packet — that’s the detailed and often lengthy supplement to the council meeting agenda — some information regarding the Shannon lease was redacted, as you can see in the accompanying illustration. This piqued my interest, so I asked for the missing details.

    Timing

    The agenda packet is often made available Thursday afternoon, although sometimes it is delayed until Friday or even Monday. I sent an email message to the city’s chief information officer at 11:16 pm Thursday. After the message worked its way through several city departments, I received the information at 5:06 pm Monday. Since city council meetings are Tuesday morning, that left little time for research and contemplation.

    This isn’t the first time citizens have been left with little information and even less time before council meetings. I was involved in an issue in 2008 where there was little time for citizens — council members, too — to absorb information before a council meeting. About this incident, former Wichita Eagle editorial board editor Randy Brown wrote this in a letter to the Eagle:

    I’m fairly well acquainted with Bob Weeks, our extraconservative government watchdog. It’s fair to say that I agree with Weeks no more than one time in every 20 issues. But that one time is crucial to our democracy.

    Weeks is dead-on target when he says that conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy (“TIF public hearing was bait and switch,” Dec. 5 Opinion). And that’s what happened when significant 11th-hour changes to the already controversial and questionable tax-increment financing plan for the downtown arena neighborhood were sneaked onto the Wichita City Council’s Tuesday agenda, essentially under cover of Monday evening’s darkness.

    This may not have been a technical violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, but it was an aggravated assault on its spirit. Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue. Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing

    little-time-review-warren-loan-termsThe Wichita officials involved in this matter were council members Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita) and Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita). Longwell’s behavior and attitude is part of a pattern, because in another incident in the same year the Wichita Eagle reported “Wichita City Council members and the public got a first look at the contracts that could send a $6 million loan to the owners of the Old Town Warren Theatre just hours before today’s scheduled vote on the matter.” (Little time to review Warren terms, July 1, 2008)

    That article quoted council member Longwell thusly: “It’s unlikely many residents would read the full contract even if it had been made public earlier.” This attitude is common among Wichita elected officials and bureaucrats, in my experience. The city formally lobbies the Kansas Legislature opposing any expansion of the Kansas Open Records Act, for example.

    Consent agenda

    The Shannon item was placed on the consent agenda. This is where items deemed to be non-controversial are voted on in bulk, perhaps two dozen or more at a time. Unless a council member asks to have an item “pulled” for discussion and a possible vote separate from the other consent items, there will be no discussion of any issues.

    In 2012 there was an issue on the consent agenda that I felt deserved discussion. I researched and prepared an article at For Wichita’s Block 1 garage, public allocation is now zero parking spaces. At the council meeting, then-council member Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) requested that I be able to present my findings to the council. But Mayor Carl Brewer and all five other city council members disagreed. They preferred to proceed as though the issue didn’t exist or was non-controversial. The message — the attitude — was that no time should be spent receiving information on the item. See For Wichita City Council, discussion is not wanted.

    Wichita city officials, including Mayor Carl Brewer, say they are proud of the open and transparent city government they have created. But this episode, as well as others described in In Wichita, disdain for open records and government transparency, lets everyone know that transparency is dispensed, and accountability accepted, at the whim of the mayor, city council, and their bureaucratic enablers.

    On his Facebook page, Clinton Coen wrote this about his city council representative James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) and this incident:

    “I am once again ashamed of my City Councilman. Councilman Clendenin should have stood alongside his colleague, Councilman O’Donnel, and allowed a citizen to address his concerns on an agenda item. All Mr. Clendenin had to do was say “second” and Mr. Weeks could have addressed the council, provided that a majority of the council voted to allow it. Instead, Mr. Clendenin chose to censor someone that has a differing opinion. By bringing it to a vote, accountability would have been created, instead the remainder of the council chose to take the cowardly path.”

    Why redacted in the first place?

    As shown in the earlier illustration, the city redacted a large chunk of information from the agenda packet that it made available to the public. The city did — after some time — positively It's easy to say value transparencyrespond to my request for the complete document. Which begs these questions: Why did the city feel that some information needed to be kept secret? Did city council members have access to the redacted information? Did any members of the public besides myself ask for the information? How many citizens might have been discouraged from asking by fear of the the hassle of asking city hall for information like this?

    There’s also the consideration that the citizens of Wichita are parties to this transaction. How well these incentive programs work and what effect they have on the Wichita economy is an important matter of public policy. Without relatively complete information, citizens are not in a position to make judgments.

    Cost

    Often council members and bureaucrats complain that providing information to citizens is a financial burden to the city. But in this case, I’m sure the city would have been dollars ahead if it had simply published the complete lease in the agenda packet. My request bounced around several city offices — three that I know of — and I imagine that each handling of my request added cost.

    Attitude

    The City of Wichita is proud to be an open and transparent governmental agency, its officials say. Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer often speaks in favor of government transparency. wichita-wins-transparency-award-2013For example, in his State of the City address for 2011, he listed as an important goal for the city this: “And we must provide transparency in all that we do.” When the city received an award for transparency in 2013, a city news release quoted Wichita City Manager Robert Layton:

    “The City Council has stressed the importance of transparency for this organization,” City Manager Robert Layton said. “We’re honored to receive a Sunny Award and we will continue to empower and engage citizens by providing information necessary to keep them informed on the actions their government is taking on their behalf.”

    The incidents describe above, combined with others, demonstrate that it’s easy for officials to say they value transparency and accountability. The actual delivery, however, is difficult for our current leaders.

    Despite the proclamations of the mayor and manager, the city needs a change of attitude towards government transparency. The incident described in this article is one more example of a divergence between the proclamations of city officials and their acts. It’s an attitude problem. All city hall has to do is get a new attitude.

    For more on this topic, see A transparency agenda for Wichita.

  • Wichita Eagle editorial endorsements: helpful, or not?

    Yesterday’s primary election in Kansas provided a measure of the influence of the Wichita Eagle editorial board. Voters ignored many of its endorsements, indicating that the newspaper — its editorial side, at least — is increasingly out of touch with its readers.

    Starting from the top, here’s how the Eagle endorsed and what the voters did. An endorsement is a recommendation to voters, and not intended to be a prediction of the outcome.

    For the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, the Eagle endorsed Jerry Moran. He won. For the Democratic Party side of this race, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator David Haley. He finished in third place.

    For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the Kansas first district, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator Jim Barnett, noting his “balanced legislative record.” The Eagle dismissed challenger Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp, calling him a “hard-right conservative with a hard edge.” This race was in a three-way tie in the last poll, but voters chose Huelskamp with 35 percent of the vote to Barnett’s 25 percent and Tracey Mann’s 21 percent.

    (There is a pattern here. According to the Eagle editorial board, conservatives are “hard,” while liberals are portrayed as soft and cuddly — or “balanced” and “nuanced,” at least.)

    For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. This had the potential to be a close race, with some polls — her own, mostly — showing Schodorf in the lead. But the race turned out to be not close, with Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo gathering 39 percent of the vote to Schodorf’s 24 percent and Wichita businessman Wink Hartman‘s 23 percent.

    On the Democratic side, the Eagle endorsed Kansas Representative Raj Goyle, and he won handily over a little-known and inexperienced challenger with no experience in elective office.

    For the Republican party nomination for Kansas Governor, the Eagle endorsed Sam Brownback, whose only competition was from a candidate with some very peculiar beliefs. Brownback won handily.

    For Kansas Secretary of State Democratic Party nomination, the Eagle backed appointed incumbent Chris Biggs over opponent Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, who the Eagle faintly praised for his “out-of-the-box thinking and independence.” Biggs won.

    On the Republican side, the Eagle endorsed career bureaucrat Elizabeth Ensley over Kris Kobach. The Eagle — Rhonda Holman, mostly — has criticized Kobach steadily on the editorial page for his contention that voter fraud is a problem in Kansas. Voters overwhelmingly chose Kobach. He got 51 percent of the vote to Ensley’s 27 percent.

    For Republican Party nomination for Attorney General, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Derek Schmidt, and he won handily over the capable but little-known Ralph De Zago.

    For Republican Party nomination for insurance commissioner, the Eagle chose incumbent Sandy Praeger, and she easily won.

    Sedgwick County Commission voters ignored Eagle recommendations

    In primary contests for Sedgwick County Commission, voters didn’t give much weight to Wichita Eagle endorsements.

    In the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for District 1, Eagle-endorsed Betty Arnold won. She’ll face unopposed incumbent Dave Unruh in the general election in this heavily Republican district.

    In District 4, two Republicans ran to replace Kelly Parks, who chose not to seek re-election. The Eagle endorsed Lucy Burtnett, who served two years in this position when she was appointed by the precinct committee system to replace Carolyn McGinn, who won election to the Kansas Senate. When Burtnett ran for election to that position in 2006, she did not win. Instead of backing the Republican primary winner, she ran a write-in campaign that had the potential to contribute to a possible Republican loss.

    Despite her loss in 2006, the Eagle endorsed her over Richard Ranzau, praising her “thoughtful” voting record, which I — after looking at her past votes — characterized as thoughtless. Ranzau won with 55 percent of the vote to Burtnett’s 44 percent. She told the Wichita Eagle that she will not support Ranzau in the general election, which naturally leads to speculation as to whether she’ll run another write-in campaign.

    For the Democratic party nomination for the position, the Eagle endorsed former Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey. From the council bench, Fearey had blasted the Eagle for uncovering problems with a real estate developer’s past dealings, blocking passage of a project she supported. Besides the editorial board endorsement, the Eagle also ran a last-minute news story embarrassing to her opponent, Kansas Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau. As of now, Faust-Goudeau has won by a margin of 60 votes out of 3,450 cast.

    In District 5, the Eagle endorsed Chuck Warren in a three-way race for the Republican Party nomination. Wichita city council member Jim Skelton won with 42 percent of the vote to Warren’s 36 percent.

    Kansas House of Representatives endorsements

    In an open seat in the Kansas House of Representatives, the Eagle endorsed Jim Howell for the 82nd district, which is primarily the city of Derby. He won.

    In the Republican party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 83, parts of east Wichita, veteran legislator Jo Ann Pottorff faced a challenge from the right in recent college graduate Kyle Amos. Pottorff had to run a last-minute ad in the Eagle attempting to burnish her conservative credentials. She won with 53 percent of the vote. This qualifies as a squeaker.

    In Kansas House of Representatives district 94, parts of west Wichita, the Eagle chose to endorse a challenger to incumbent Joe McLeland in the Republican primary. The Eagle criticized him as a “yes-man for GOP leadership and anti-tax think tanks” and said he “parroted misleading information about school budgets during the past session.” McLeland won with 63 percent of the vote. His two challengers received 22 percent and 16 percent.

    In the Republican Party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 96, parts of south Wichita, the Eagle endorsed first-term incumbent Phil Hermanson, and he won.

    The Eagle recommended that voters chose incumbent Gail Finney in the Democratic Party primary for the 84th district, and she won by a large margin.

    For election results from races in Sedgwick County, click on August 3rd, 2010 Primary Election Unofficial Results — Sedgwick County. For statewide races and other races, click on 2010 unofficial primary election results at Kansas Secretary of State.

More posts