Tag Archives: Elections

WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas gubernatorial candidate Rick Kloos

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Independent candidate for Kansas governor Rick Kloos joins Bob and Karl to explain why he should be our next governor. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 210, broadcast September 23, 2018.

Shownotes

WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas gubernatorial candidate Jeff Caldwell

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Libertarian Party candidate for Kansas governor Jeff Caldwell joins Bob and Karl to explain why he should be our next governor. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 209, broadcast September 16, 2018.

Shownotes

From Pachyderm: Sedgwick County Commission candidates

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Republican Candidates for Sedgwick County Commission. Appearing, in order of their initial appearance, were:

  • Richard Ranzau, District 4.
  • Pete Meitzner, District 1.
  • Jim Howell, District 5.

This was recorded September 7, 2018.

Shownotes

WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas gubernatorial candidate Greg Orman

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Independent candidate for Kansas governor Greg Orman joins Bob and Karl to explain why he should be our next governor. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 208, broadcast September 9, 2018.

Shownotes

From Pachyderm: Kansas House of Representatives Candidates

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kansas House of Representatives Candidates. These are Republican candidates appearing on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot. This was recorded on August 24, 2018.

Candidates were, in order of initial appearance:

  • Blake Carpenter, 81st District
  • Emil Bergquist, 91st District
  • Leo Delperdang, 94th District
  • Ron Howard, 98th District

Clockwise from top left: Blake Carpenter, Leo Delperdang, Ron Howard, Emil Bergquist

WichitaLiberty.TV: Primary election results, part two

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Hosts Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks continue reporting on some of the results of the August 7, 2018 primary election in Kansas. View below, or click here to view on YouTube. Episode 206, broadcast August 19, 2018.

Since this episode was recorded, the Sedgwick County Commission District 4 Republican primary manual recount was completed. There were no discrepancies between the results reported after the canvass and the results from the recount. The result is Hugh Nicks 3,438 votes, and Richard Ranzau 3,513 votes.

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.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Primary election results

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Hosts Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks report on some of the results of the August 7, 2018 primary election in Kansas. View here, or click below to view on YouTube. Episode 205, broadcast August 11, 2018.

Taxers prefer Hugh Nicks for Sedgwick County Commission

Those who supported higher sales taxes in Wichita also support one Sedgwick County Commission District 4 Republican candidate exclusively.

In 2014 the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, now known as the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce, managed a campaign to persuade voters to institute a sales tax in the City of Wichita. The sales tax was to be one cent per dollar for five years, estimated to raise about $400 million in total. Of that, $250 million was to pay for enhancing the ASR water supply project, $80 million for job creation, and lesser amounts for bus transit and street repair.

The sales tax failed to pass, with 62 percent of voters saying no. Since then, the wisdom of voters in rejecting the tax has become evident. For example, the city has developed a plan to provide the same benefits for water supply for over $100 million less.

During the 2014 campaign the sales tax boosters raised campaign money through an organization named Yes Wichita Inc. Over one hundred people and companies contributed $321,527 in cash, and the Chamber of Commerce added $50,818 as an in-kind contribution.

These people and companies contributed money to persuade voters to raise taxes in Wichita. In some cases, a lot of money: $100,818 from the Wichita Chamber of Commerce, $40,000 from Intrust Bank, and $25,000 from Westar Energy.

Some of these people and companies have also contributed to a candidate for the Sedgwick County Commission District 4 Republican primary election. I examined campaign finance reports for matches. It isn’t an exact science. The data is not filed in a way that can be readily analyzed by a computer in a spreadsheet or database. Sometimes donations are made in a company name, and sometimes by owners or executives of the same company. There are spelling errors and variations in how company names are reported. So I may have failed to notice matches, and there is a small chance that I made erroneous matches.

Based on my research, I found that all the pro-tax people and companies who also contributed to Sedgwick County Commission District 4 Republican candidates had one thing in common: They contributed to Hugh Nicks exclusively. His opponent, Richard Ranzau, received no contributions from the pro-tax people and companies, based on my analysis.

Separately, the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC has spent $45,148 on political candidates through August 1 of this year. Of that, $36,665 was spent in favor of one candidate, Hugh Nicks. That’s 81.2 percent spent on one candidate from an organization that contributed $100,818 towards higher taxes. (See Wichita Chamber PAC spends heavily for Hugh Nicks.)

What does this mean: Those who want higher sales taxes in Wichita contribute to Hugh Nicks for Sedgwick County Commission, and he alone? It is a coincidence, mere serendipity?

In his campaign literature, Hugh Nicks says “Taxes Are High Enough.”

But the evidence is clear: Those who want higher taxes prefer Hugh Nicks.

Following, a table showing the commonality between contributors to the Yes Wichita sales tax campaign in 2014 and Hugh Nicks. Click for a larger version.

Wichita Chamber PAC spends heavily for Hugh Nicks

The Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC dedicates a large portion of its spending on placing its crony in office.

In the contest for Sedgwick County Commission District 4, the Wichita Chamber of Commerce is spending heavily on one candidate.

Through its political action committee, the Chamber has spent $45,148 on political candidates through August 1 of this year. (There could be more spending before the August 7 primary. We don’t know.)

Of that, $36,665 was spent in favor of one candidate, Hugh Nicks. (The Chamber PAC’s finance report designates these expenditures as in favor of Nicks.)

That’s 81.2 percent spent on one candidate.

Click for larger.

Besides the spending on Nicks, the Chamber PAC sent money to legislative and statewide candidates. Most contributions were for $500, with the most notable exception being Governor Jeff Colyer at $2,000.

Really, the Chamber’s spending hasn’t been so much in favor of Hugh Nicks as it has been against his opponent Richard Ranzau.

And this campaigning by the chamber has been largely based on outright lies and absurd leaps of logic regarding Ranzau’s record. Their record is documented on the pages of Voice for Liberty. (Click here to read the articles.)

Instead of denouncing the lies and distortions told on his behalf by the Wichita Chamber PAC, candidate Hugh Nicks embraces the PAC’s endorsement.

We’d like to be able to trust the Wichita Chamber of Commerce. We want to trust our business and civic leaders. We want the Chamber and its surrogates and affiliates like Greater Wichita Partnership to succeed in building the Wichita economy.

But the Chamber is shaming itself in this campaign, and spending a lot of money to do that.

It would be one thing if the Chamber and its surrogates were successful in economic development efforts in the region. But 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.”

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.

Having failed the people of Wichita, now we know just how much the Chamber wants to put Hugh Nicks on the Sedgwick County Commission.

From Pachyderm: Candidates for Kansas House of Representatives

From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Candidates for Kansas House of Representatives districts 74, 75, and 80. This was recorded on August 3, 2018.

Candidates invited included:

  • Kansas House District 74: Stephen Owens and incumbent Don Schroeder (Did not attend)
  • Kansas House District 75: Will Carpenter and incumbent Mary Martha Good (Did not attend)
  • Kansas House District 80: Incumbent Anita Judd-Jenkins (Did not attend) and Bill Rhiley

Here are maps of the districts:

WichitaLiberty.TV: Joseph Ashby on Kansas elections

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita talk radio pioneer Joseph Ashby shares his thoughts on the upcoming Kansas primary election. We cover the Secretary of State, Governor, and Sedgwick County Commission. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 204, broadcast August 4, 2018.

Shownotes

Wichita Chamber PAC spending on Hugh Nicks

The Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC dedicates a large portion of its spending on placing its crony in office.

There is an updated version of this containing data from new reports. Click here.

In the contest for Sedgwick County Commission District 4, the Wichita Chamber of Commerce is spending heavily on one candidate.

Through its political action committee, the Chamber has spent $39,925 on political candidates through July 26 of this year. (There could be more spending before the August 7 primary. We don’t know.)

Of that, $31,442 was spent in favor of one candidate, Hugh Nicks. (The Chamber PAC’s finance report designates these expenditures as in favor of Nicks.)

That’s 78.8 percent spent on one candidate.

Besides the spending on Nicks, the Chamber PAC sent money to legislative and statewide candidates. Most contributions were for $500, with the most notable exception being Governor Jeff Colyer at $2,000.

Really, the Chamber’s spending hasn’t been so much in favor of Hugh Nicks as it has been against his opponent Richard Ranzau.

And this campaigning by the chamber has been largely based on outright lies and farcical leaps of logic regarding Ranzau’s record. Their record is documented on the pages of Voice for Liberty.

We’d like to be able to trust the Wichita Chamber of Commerce. We want to trust our business and civic leaders. We want the Chamber and its surrogates and affiliates like Greater Wichita Partnership to succeed in building the Wichita economy.

But the Chamber is shaming itself in this campaign, and spending a lot of money to do that.

It would be one thing if the Chamber and its surrogates were successful in economic development efforts in the region. But 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.”

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.

Having failed the people of Wichita, now we know just how much the Chamber wants to put Hugh Nicks on the Sedgwick County Commission.

Joseph Ashby endorses Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

Conservative grassroots activist and pioneering radio host Joseph Ashby explains why Richard Ranzau is the best choice for Sedgwick County Commission District 4. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

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.

Hugh Nicks: Misinformed, or lying?

Analysis of criticism by Hugh Nicks, a candidate for Sedgwick County Commission, demonstrates that the candidate is either misinformed or lying.

On his Facebook page, Sedgwick County Commission candidate Hugh Nicks accuses Richard Ranzau of “Voting against our community’s children and babies.” As evidence, Nicks supplies a link to an article in the Wichita Eagle. 1

What’s notable about this claim is this paragraph from the article Nicks uses as evidence:

In 2015, Ranzau and other commissioners voted to cut the federal Women, Infants and Children program grant by $320,000 to $1.9 million. He said at the time that WIC could be more efficient because it was serving fewer clients. The county health department used only $1.83 million of the $2.15 million it was awarded the year before. 2

Note that the amount Ranzau (and others) voted to spend on WIC was slightly more than what was spent the year before, at a time when WIC demand was declining, as there were fewer clients. At the time, KMUW Radio reported: “Citing a recent decline in WIC participants that coincides with an increase in employees with the program, the commission’s majority voted to accept only a portion of the grant, saying the full amount wasn’t needed.” 3

So 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.

What does Hugh Nicks think of this? In the Eagle article he uses in his Facebook post, the reporter wrote this about Nicks:

He also called the WIC program “one of the saddest things I’ve seen recently.”

“When it comes to infants and children, I’m not too worried about politics, but I am concerned about children’s health and safety,” Nicks said. “The commission has a duty to protect the most vulnerable among us, particularly when they have nowhere else to turn.”

Since no women and children lost their benefits or had them cut, it’s difficult to see why Nicks is sad.

Is he concerned that the county trimmed administrative costs? Consider some of the values listed in Nicks’ campaign literature: “Ask tough questions” and “Be conservative with finances.”

That is what the commission did, under Richard Ranzau’s chairmanship. Trimming administrative costs — no matter who is paying them — is financially conservative.

Those savings came from “asking tough questions,” a value Nicks upholds. Yet for doing that, Nicks blasts the commission, including Ranzau, as “sad” and “political.”

Voters ought to ask: Is Hugh Nicks merely uninformed, or is he lying? It might be tempting to dismiss these remarks as having been made by an uninformed candidate. But Nicks says he has been running since October 2017 so that he can learn about the issues. 4

If we eliminate “uninformed,” we’re left with “lying.”

Nearby, see Richard Ranzau speak on this issue. (Hugh Nicks and his campaign surrogates were also invited, but would not appear.) Or, click here to view at YouTube.

Following, some excerpts from the commission meeting where this matter was discussed: 5

Ms. Adrienne Byrne-Lutz, Director of the Health Department: “The Health Department has provided WIC services for well over 40 years, and the program is funded entirely through the United States Department of Agriculture that passes through KDHE.”

Later:

Chairman Ranzau said, “Our assigned caseload is going down 9.88 percent, expenditures going up 5.51 percent, and we’re actually combining two, last year there were two separate, the WIC and then the breastfeeding.”

Ms. Adrienne Byrne-Lutz said, “That’s correct.”

Later:

Chairman Ranzau said, “Historically, the past, we tend to spend less than what we’re actually given. Like the last two years, we spent about $320,000 less than what we were given to begin with?”

Ms. Adrienne Byrne-Lutz said, “Well, we don’t get a lump sum from WIC. We just get what we spend.”

Chairman Ranzau said, “But we spent $320,000 less than what we were authorized to spend?”

Ms. Adrienne Byrne-Lutz said, “Yes.”


Notes

  1. Nicks For County Commission Facebook page, July 20, 2018. Available at https://www.facebook.com/NicksForCountyCommission/photos/a.1633354576739927.1073741832.1591968844211834/2011959645546083/.
  2. Tidd, Jason. Ranzau, County Commission challengers spar over grant funding in health forum.” *Wichita Eagle, July 17, 2018. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article215075195.html.
  3. Sandefur, Sean. Sedgwick Co. Commissioners Approve Reduced WIC Grant. Available at http://www.kmuw.org/post/sedgwick-co-commissioners-approve-reduced-wic-grant.
  4. “You may wonder why I’m announcing so early, since the Republican Primary for the County Commission seat isn’t until August 2018. The reason is simple. I like to do my homework. I want to learn about the way Sedgwick County governs, and the rationale behind the decisions that have been made. I want to learn about the issues that are most important to the people in the 4th District. I think serving as County Commissioner is too important to take an on-the-job-training approach, and I don’t want to be on a learning curve at the taxpayers’ expense.” Nicks4commissioner.com. News. October 19, 2017. Available at http://www.nicks4commissioner.com/news.html. .
  5. Sedgwick County Commission. Meeting Minutes, October 7, 2015. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=436793&GUID=B8AC30D4-8245-4631-A804-0690C15BC9CC.

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:

WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commission District 4

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Candidates and parties involved in the Republican party primary for Sedgwick County Commission District 4. Efforts were made to reach both candidates plus representatives of the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC, as it is advertising in this contest. Only candidate Richard Ranzau agreed to appear. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 203, broadcast July 28, 2018.

Hugh Nicks and the law enforcement training center

Sedgwick County Commission candidate Hugh Nicks again falsely criticizes his opponent for living up to the values Nicks himself proclaims.

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. 1

Nicks is a candidate for the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, District 4. His opponent is the incumbent Richard Ranzau.

The article the Nicks campaign uses reports on deliberations on the new Law Enforcement Training Center in the spring of 2016. 2 But: There are some problem with Hugh Nicks’ presentation and interpretation of this matter.

First, the action described in the article is “tabled.” This merely postponed a decision to another day. No one voted either yes or no.

Second, it wasn’t postponed for long. The next week the Sedgwick County Commission held a joint meeting with the Wichita City Council to discuss the training center. 3 The result of this meeting was unanimous approval, as reported by the Wichita Eagle: “Sedgwick County and the city of Wichita unanimously approved a letter of intent Tuesday to build a new training center at Wichita State University’s Innovation Campus.” 4

The next day, at the regular meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, the training center was considered. 5 In his remarks from the bench, Commissioner Ranzau summarized: “I do believe this is the best deal we can get given the circumstances, certainly for the county, law enforcement and fire folks, it’s a tremendous step forward. I appreciate our legal council and all the work they did as well on this and the County Manager. I know there’s been a lot of discussion, a lot of stuff going on, so appreciate that, and I’ll be supportive of this motion today.”

When a vote was taken, all commissioners voted in favor.

Now that you know the entire story, reconsider the claim that Hugh Nicks made regarding Ranzau and the law enforcement training center: “Voting against support for law enforcement.”

That simply isn’t true. Not even close.

So: Why is Hugh Nicks critical of Ranzau on this matter? Why is he creating lies?

Consider some of the values listed in Nicks’ campaign literature:

“Be conservative with finances”

“Decisions have consequences. Make them wisely.”

This is what Richard Ranzau did. He favored, as you can read below, a less expensive option — the fiscally conservative option — but voted for the compromise position so that the project could proceed.

Furthermore, the Wichita Business Journal article that Hugh Nicks relies on as a source holds this: “On Wednesday, commissioners — particularly Chairman Jim Howell and Richard Ranzau — expressed concern about selecting a bid that wasn’t the lowest. MWCB has the second-highest cost of the four proposals, county documents show.”

Here, Ranzau was concerned about a potentially unwise decision, that is, not accepting the lowest bid. That’s fiscally conservative and wise.

So exactly what problems does Hugh Nicks have with Richard Ranzau?


Following, an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on May 18, 2016:

Commissioner Ranzau said, “As Commissioner Peterjohn alluded to, this particular attempt started basically back in July of 2015 when the mayor informed us that they would be willing to work with us on an RFP (Request for Proposal) together to move this forward. This particular effort has lasted 10 months. Now, that’s about four months longer than what I had anticipated, but never nevertheless, compared to the 30-year process that’s been going on overall, you can consider this almost lightning speed for government actions. Nevertheless, we are finally here at the point that we’re going to make a decision on the Law Enforcement Training Center, and I appreciate the effort of staff both here at the County and at the City, as well as all the Law Enforcement personnel who participated in getting us to this point.

“I think we have two options that will fit the needs. The WSU option would fit the need so would, I believe, the Commerce Building, which is over $3 million cheaper. That would be the particular one that I would have preferred to go to, because I think it does meet all of our community needs at the lowest cost possible for the taxpayers. That being said, while this may not be the most cost effective option that we could have gotten, it’s certainly probably the best we can get given the circumstances. The City of Wichita made it very clear they would not proceed with the Commerce Building. They would start all over and do it again if we selected that, so we’re left in the conundrum of what do we do? Do we say we aren’t going to do anything or do we say that we are going to work with them and see what we can do? Fortunately, we had a Chairman who had some vision and followed the big picture and said, well, if we’re going to spend more money on this facility, then what can we get for the extra expense for the taxpayers, and so we entered into discussions about the Fire Training Center, and while he was criticized for this, I think it’s an example of having a vision and not having tunnel vision.

“You’ve got to see the big picture, and he addressed two very important issues for this community in a very effective way. And so we’re not just here today to celebrate Law Enforcement Training Center, but we can celebrate the Regional Fire Training Center as well and the new partnership between the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, and I think he should be congratulated for his vision and leadership in that area for our community. Sometimes, if you want to be a leader, have you have to be prepared to be criticized. But you continue to march forward and do the right thing because you know it’s the right thing. That’s what leadership is. Despite all the detractors and all the nay-sayers, you have a vision, you have a goal, and you execute a plan to reach that goal, and that’s admirable in this day and age.

“For those reasons, as stated, I do believe this is the best deal we can get given the circumstances, certainly for the county, law enforcement and fire folks, it’s a tremendous step forward. I appreciate our legal council and all the work they did as well on this and the County Manager. I know there’s been a lot of discussion, a lot of stuff going on, so appreciate that, and I’ll be supportive of this motion today.”

When a vote was taken, all commissioners voted in favor.


Notes

  1. Nicks For County Commission Facebook page, July 23, 2018. Available at https://www.facebook.com/NicksForCountyCommission/photos/a.1633354576739927.1073741832.1591968844211834/2019318654810182/.
  2. Heck, Josh. Sedgwick County Commission tables vote on law enforcement training center at WSU. Wichita Business Journal, May 11, 2016. Available at https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2016/05/sedgwick-county-commission-tables-vote-on-law.html.
  3. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, May 17, 2016. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=486352&GUID=99EB8331-86AD-48CD-B8E5-743F2FF28AA6.
  4. Salazar, Danial. Sedgwick County, Wichita agree to build law enforcement training center at WSU. Wichita Eagle, May 17, 2016. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article78051732.html.
  5. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, May 18, 2016. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=485988&GUID=ABD59669-B2C6-409F-8978-049DEF903C56.

Hugh Nicks and the Sedgwick County fishing dock

Sedgwick County Commission candidate Hugh Nicks criticizes his opponent for living up to the values Nicks himself proclaims.

On July 13, 2018, Hugh Nicks wrote this on his campaign’s Facebook page, referring to Richard Ranzau: “And even questioned the need for handicapped-accessible recreational options.” 1

Nicks is a candidate for the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, District 4. His opponent is the incumbent Richard Ranzau.

The accusation is a bit vague, but it’s pretty certain that Nicks is referring to an item from 2011 when commissioners were asked to approve spending $53,500 on what was described as “VIC’S LAKE FISHING DOCK – FACILITIES DEPARTMENT FUNDING — ADA COMPLIANCE UPGRADES.”

Examining the record, we find that yes, there is a grain of truth in Nicks’ allegation: Ranzau did question this item, but not because it was “handicapped-accessible.” Here’s what happened.

On September 28, 2011, when this item came before the commissioners, Commissioner Ranzau expressed concern with the cost of the fishing dock, given the information commissioners had been provided. So too did Commissioners Karl Peterjohn and Tim Norton. A motion was made to defer the item, and all commissioners present that day voted in agreement. 2

At the next meeting, on October 5, 2011, the item was again on the agenda. 3 At this meeting Joe Thomas, at that time Acting Director of the Purchasing Department, explained that the dock itself did not cost $53,500. Instead, the dock cost only $26,162. Other necessary items in the project included site prep ($6,920), a concrete sidewalk ($3,066), a concrete pavement parking and picnic area which includes an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant picnic table ($6,852), an asphalt drive ($7,400), site restoration ($1,500), and “general conditions” ($1,600).

Knowing this, $53,500 seems reasonable. And Ranzau said as much in remarks after these costs were presented: “So my questions were not based on whether or not because it was an ADA dock. If you take the word ADA off of it and you come to me and say you’re going to build a $53,000 dock, I’m going to ask, do we really need to do that? Because that’s a lot of money for a dock, and so we asked for further information about how that money was going to be spent, and it clarifies a lot of information.”

After more discussion, there was a vote, and all commissioners voted in favor of building the dock, including Ranzau and Peterjohn.

Now that we know the whole story, why would Hugh Nicks be critical of Ranzau on this matter? Especially considering these values listed in bullet points on Nicks’ campaign literature:

  • Never be afraid of hard work.
  • Listen openly. Debate respectfully. Ask tough questions.
  • Be conservative with finances and generous with time.
  • Decisions have consequences. Make them wisely.

I’ve emphasized where Ranzau’s action on the fishing dock aligns with Nicks’ values. The questions Ranzau asked weren’t really “tough questions,” but they were needed and submitted respectfully. The answers helped the commissioners learn they were indeed being conservative with finances. It was a decision made wisely, with complete information.

So exactly what problems does Hugh Nicks have with Richard Ranzau?


Following, relevant Sedgwick County Commission meeting minutes.

Excerpt from the meeting of the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on September 28, 2011:

Chairman Unruh said, “Now we’re ready to discuss Item 6, and Commissioner Ranzau, I will ask you to lead that discussion, also.”

Commissioner Ranzau said, “Well, this is $50,000 for a boat dock, or for a dock out at the fishing lake. While I’ve had time to go out and look at the bridge at the Boys Ranch, I’ve not looked at this specific thing. And with the information I’ve been given, I’m not prepared to support this, because I’m not sure this is the best route to go. Particularly at this current status with our finances here, this seems like a lot of money for a fishing dock. And even though I’m a fisherman, I’m just not convinced. Unless I’m totally convinced it’s appropriate enough of a project, I’m not prepared to vote yes. It’s really up to the will of the Board. Today, if we vote on it today, I’ll vote no.” Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m concerned with the price tag of $53,500 for basically a boat dock. I have concerns on the expense here, and I realize this is the low bid, and it’s a low bid by significant margin from two other firms that provided bids, and there was a much larger list of firms that didn’t even offer. My question to ask, is if we could also put this issue off a week like we did Item number 4 without causing any difficulty?”

Mr. William P. Buchanan said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to see if we could get some more information on this project, just like we did on the prior item.”

MOTION

Commissioner Peterjohn moved to defer Item 6 of the Board of Bids and Contracts Regular Meeting of September 22, 2011.

Commissioner Ranzau seconded the motion.

Chairman Unruh said, “All right. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Commissioner Norton.”

Commissioner Norton said, “I’ll support the deferral. I would like to ask a question, though. It talks about that it’s not just the boat dock that we’re, actually we’re replacing one that should be out of service. Is that correct?”

There followed more discussion, and then the vote on the deferral. All commissioners voted in favor, except for Commissioner Skelton, who was absent.

Here are the complete minutes for the dock item from the meeting of the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on October 5, 2011:

L 11-1028 RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6 OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: VIC’S LAKE FISHING DOCK- FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.

Presented by Joe Thomas, Director, Purchasing Department. This item was deferred at the September 28, 2011 Commission Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the recommendations of the Board of Bids and Contracts.

Mr. Joe Thomas, Acting Director, Purchasing Department, greeted the Commissioners and said, “The recommendation for this item is to accept the low bid from DanCo Enterprises, Inc in the amount of $53,500.00. I’ll be happy to answer questions. We also have members of staff that are available to answer questions as well, and I recommend approval of this item.”

Chairman Unruh said, “All right. Thank you, Joe. We’ve had lots of discussion and exposure to this item. Commissioners, are there any other comment or questions that need to be answered?”

MOTION
Commissioner Norton moved to approve the recommendation from the Board of Bids and Contracts. Commissioner Skelton seconded the motion.

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joe, could you give us just a quick rundown in terms of the, because the heartburn that we expressed last week was we were looking at a dock that was $53,000, and then we discussed $53,000 and change, and we discovered it was more than just a dock. And I was very much interested in getting for the record and appreciating of staff and other folks in terms of getting the bid broken down so we had a better understanding of what the numbers
actually were.”

Mr. Thomas said, “Yes. The fishing dock itself was $26,162, site prep was $6,920. Then there is a concrete sidewalk in the amount of $3,066. Then there is a concrete pavement parking and picnic area which includes ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant picnic table, $6,852. The asphalt drive was $7,400. To restore the site was $1,500, and general conditions $1,600 that made that total of $53,500.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Joe. Because Sedgwick County Park is, at the moment, currently surrounded by my district even though my best efforts to try to and get it split it up between myself and Commissioner Ranzau was not successful. But it’s a jewel, I think, that’s valuable for the entire Commission and the entire community, so I’m planning to be supportive now that we have this additional information and details. It’s a lot easier to explain the costs. It’s still an awful lot of money, but I’m comfortable with it, and I’ll be supportive.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Ranzau.”

Commissioner Ranzau said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make several comments here. I originally wanted to postpone this or had some issues with this for a couple of reasons. I asked the question, do we really need to do, have an ADA dock given our current situation, our financial situation, and why do we need to do this now and I also questioned the cost of it. I’ve gotten some feedback, some of it supportive of my position, some of it is not. Some people think my opposition is somehow because I oppose the ADA or people with disabilities, which could not be further from the truth. I think it’s important to remember that we have an ADA plan here at the county which I have supported voted for things previously and I will continue to do so. So my questions were not based on whether or not because it was an ADA dock. If you take the word ADA off of it and you come to me and say you’re going to build a $53,000 dock, I’m going to ask, do we really need to do that? Because that’s a lot of money for a dock, and so we asked for further information about how that money was going to be spent, and it clarifies a lot of information. I think it’s reasonable and justified to question how we spend taxpayer dollars regardless of what it’s going to be spent on.

“I think the fact that it has an ADA stamp on it doesn’t mean in my mind that it should get a pass. I have questioned things that the Sheriff Department is going to do. I’ve questioned things that the Fire Department is going to do. I’ve questioned things that the road and bridge, Public Works are going to do. It’s not because I don’t support those things, but I want to make sure that each project and each cost is appropriate. I will continue to support the ADA program, but once again, if there is a program in the future that I think the costs seems a little out of whack, I’m not going to hesitate on behalf of the citizens to ask for more information and put the vote off if necessary. I also want to point out that at this particular meeting, we actually postponed two items.

Commissioner Ranzau continued, ““It was this item, and another one was a bridge that we’re going to possibly put in down at the [Judge Riddle] Boys Ranch. I called it a bridge to nowhere, because it’s actually a bridge to get horses to the pasture. And in my mind, that was the most problematic of the two, to be honest, because it’s almost four times the cost almost as what this is. That’s the one I spent more time investigating and learning about and as you’ll notice, it’s not back on the agenda yet, so we’ll have to address that in the future. I’m not singling out the ADA program at all. I have voted for them in the past and will continue to do so, but I’ll take a close eye at every spending project we have. And like I said, there were two different items on last week’s agenda that I talked about, and the most clearly problematic was the other one, the other one that didn’t get all the attention or all the press. So I want to clarify that so that people understand where I’m coming from. As I said, I make no apologies for examining how we are spending taxpayer dollars regardless of where it comes from, if it’s ADA, police, sheriff, whatever, these are all good programs, but we just need to make sure we get the best bang for our buck. Thank you.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Before we go to vote here, Mr. David Calvert is here, a leader in the community for ADA issues. Did you want to make a comment, sir?”

Mr. David Calvert, Chair, Wichita/Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I would like to, Mr. Chairman, just briefly, and I’ll spare you the 30-minute…I’ve got a microphone on. I don’t know if it works. I can hear myself, but that’s about it. I am David Calvert. I’m an attorney, but I also chair and have chaired for the last six years the Wichita/Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board, started out as the Wichita Access Advisory Board to advise the city on disability issues. Sedgwick County joined this board by this board’s request in, I think 2007, and each of you Commissioners have appointees to that board and the Manager has appointees to that board as well. I will spare you the history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I will say as part of the proactive stance this county has taken and this board has taken on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a self-evaluation and transition plan was created in 2006. Self-evaluation itself is online. It is 200 pages. I don’t necessarily urge you to read it. I will tell you that the transition plan is also online, and there is a link to those plans on the home page, again to the county’s credit.

“The list of facilities covered by the transition plan is itself six pages long. The link to the Sedgwick County Park gets you to the Sedgwick County Park’s transition plan, which is 17 pages long. The total of all of these is like a couple of thousand pages. This particular fishing dock is referenced in the transition plan, pointing out that there are no accessible docks at all in Sedgwick County Park, and each one of the projects set forth in the transition plan is given a priority rating from very high to low priority. Low priority items can be done 5 or 10 years from now, high priority and very high priority items, many which should have been done by now. This is a very high priority item, and simply gives access to people with disabilities, which covers statistically probably 75,000 people in Sedgwick County alone, and if we all live long enough, it will cover each and every one of us at one time in our lives.

“The reason everybody doesn’t end up with a disability is a lot of us simply die first, which I guess is the ultimate disability, isn’t it? But I would, this is part of this Commission’s continuing commitment to ADA compliance. People with disabilities don’t ask for special favors.

“We ask for compliance with the ADA, which simply gives people with disabilities the same right to be independent that people without disabilities have, and I think that that’s what this does. I would urge this Commission to unanimously support this bid. Thank you.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, sir. We have a couple more comments. Commissioner Ranzau.”

Commissioner Ranzau said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to clarify a couple of things just for the public. The $53,000 we’re spending, $26,000 is for the dock itself. Now, that’s been part of my consternation that regardless whether it’s ADA compliant or not that that seems like a lot of money, but I know Mark Sroufe has done some research, and it’s possible that that actual cost will come in less than that, because he’s compared it to the price of some docks that other facilities have put into place. Also one of the big questions was why are we doing a dock now compared to, well, when you put it in the context of the overall budget. And I’ve been told that it’s a matter of priority and timing in that for the parks system, this is the high priority because, as he stated, we have no accessible docks, and it’s also a factor of timing in that the dock is getting to the point that now it needs to be replaced. So, I have to put all of those things together and then decide if this is the best way to spend money on behalf of the citizens at this time, and that’s why we took the time to ask the questions to get more information.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Skelton.”

Commissioner Skelton said, “I just wanted to concur with Mr. Calvert’s comments. I appreciate them very much. That provides the basis for my support for this project today.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “I’ll just state for the record I appreciate Mr. Calvert’s work on a volunteer basis for the board that works with these issues here in Sedgwick County. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. Commissioner Norton.”

Commissioner Norton said, “Well, I’m going to be supportive. I’ve been supportive of what we’ve done over the years for our population that have difficulties maneuvering our community. The truth is to me it’s not about ADA, although some of that is prescriptive, it’s about what’s right for our community and the population that we live with that are part of our families, a robust part of our community and doing the right thing. So it’s not about the ADA, it’s prescriptive on what we do when we remodel something. It’s about what is right for our community. We’ve developed Sedgwick County Park with a balanced playground through help from West Side Rotary [Club of Wichita]. We continue to try to make our community as vibrant as we can for all the populations. So I think it’s the right thing to do. We were going to replace that anyway, and it makes sense to replace it in a manner that will make it accessible to all citizens regardless of age and difficulty. That’s all I have, Mr. Chair.”

Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. I don’t believe I can add anything to all the conversation.

Chairman Unruh continued, “I also express my appreciation to Mr. Calvert and for your leadership on our committee that addresses these issues and I also see Lindsey here, she’s our staff person who keeps us on track. We’re proud of the valuable work she does for us all, so thank you.”

Mr. Calvert said, “I want to say, Mr. Chairman, if I might, Lindsey is the Vice Chairman of our committee, and she’s the one that does all the work.”

Chairman Unruh said, “It’s good to have someone like that around, isn’t it? Mr. Manager.”

Mr. Buchanan said, “I can’t help myself. So does that mean you’re the pretty face?”

Mr. Calvert said, “Are you looking at me or are you looking…”

Mr. Buchanan said, “Yes, no, I’m looking at you, Dave.”

Commissioner Peterjohn said, “I think the Manager needs a new pair of glasses.”

Chairman Unruh said, “You were right, Mr. Manager, that was unnecessary. Madam Clerk, I think we have a motion, we’re ready to call the vote.”

There was a vote, and all commissioners voted in favor.


Notes

  1. Nicks For County Commission Facebook page, July 13, 2018. Available at https://www.facebook.com/NicksForCountyCommission/photos/a.1633354576739927.1073741832.1591968844211834/2000527696689278/.
  2. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, September 28, 2011. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=161070&GUID=2982541F-CC0E-4FFE-9DE3-CE1C4D59FA4D.
  3. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, October 5, 2011. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=162540&GUID=1CF92BD6-DF16-460A-8BFA-F1B86A5AB115.