Voice For Liberty

Tag: Government ethics

  • Wichita ethics code to be considered

    Wichita ethics code to be considered

    The Wichita city council will consider an ethics code that overlooks a simple and effective solution to a problem.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider the final version of a proposed ethics code. It does not cover campaign finance. It does cover gifts to council members, which has been an issue in the past.

    Part of the problem with the proposal is the creation of a new board, the Ethics Advisory Board. Its members will be asked to judge things like whether a gift is “… intended or has the appearance or effect …” The board will be asked to judge intent. It will need to consider how things appear. This is all highly subjective.

    A further problem is that the new code requires disclosure of gifts, but on an annual basis. This means that by the time the public becomes aware of activity, it is likely past the time when awareness has value. If information about gifts has value in helping people make informed voting decisions, we need to have timely disclosure. This is also a problem with the disclosure of campaign contributions in Kansas.

    Rapid disclosure of gifts can help citizens judge the actions of elected officials. Disclosure should have these properties, and the propsed code has none:

    • Disclose everything. This means everything, except gifts from family. If someone buys lunch or coffee for an official, it must be disclosed.
    • Disclose rapidly. Something like filing a report each Monday covering activity during the previous week.
    • Disclose online.
    • Disclose effectively. This means information entered in a machine-readable format that can be downloaded in useful form.

    Some of the points that have caused disagreement include the meaning of friends. If we want to restrict the involvement of friends, how do we define the term? This is a problem with the current ethics ordinance in Wichita. City attorneys have told us that with no definition of the term friend, the ordinance can’t be enforced. See In Wichita, a problem with government ethics, Wichita fails ethics test, Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    Disclosing everything eliminates the issue of someone deciding the meaning of friend. Voters and others can make their own decisions. Elected officials’ opponents will help us learn this.

    (An old saw: “Why bother researching your family? Just go into politics, and your opponents will do that for you.”)

    Will disclosing all gifts rapidly be burdensome to officeholders and staff? Many employees file detailed expense reports so that they may be reimbursed. This is not a problem.

    Disclosing effectively is necessary to make use of information filed on these gift reports. The minimum requirement is that the information in reports be downloaded in machine-readable formats. Currently, for campaign finance reports in Sedgwick County, including for Wichita city offices, reports are filed in a variety of formats. The information is difficult to use, even if optical character recognition can be applied successfully. Some reports are filed in handwriting, and others appear to be faxed to the election office in such low quality that I believe the candidates want to avoid effective use of the information.

    Disclosing effectively means that analysis of the reports will be easier than it would be otherwise. Who will do this analysis? There are several sources, such as journalists and citizens such as myself. And, of course, candidates’ opponents.

    The agenda report for this item is here, and the code itself is here. Here are a few excepts from the code:

    “Avoid the appearance of improper influence and refrain from ever receiving, soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, hospitality, favors or anything of value for the official, or their family, valued over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) from a specific donor over a one-year period ending on December 31, which is intended or has the appearance or effect of influencing the performance of the official duties of an official.”

    “Further, a public official shall report any offer or presentation of a gift or gratuity valued at fifty dollars ($50.00) or more on a yearly basis.”

  • Wichita water plant contract

    Wichita water plant contract

    Wichita should consider discarding the water plant contract in order to salvage its reputation and respect for process.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider approving a contract with Wichita Water Partners to build a new water treatment plant. It’s a controversial matter that likely played a significant role in the recent mayoral election. Wichita Eagle reporting by Chance Swaim in the story Wichita’s mayor steered multi-million-dollar water plant contract to friends traces through the issues.

    The most important thing is that the city receives a reliable water plant that meets its needs. Currently, the city operates a plant that is the only source of water. It’s described as having outlived its useful life. At any moment over the next several years, the city might have to spend millions to repair a plant it will retire soon.

    It’s also important that the city does not reward the corruption — petty or not — surrounding the awarding of this contract. Mayor Longwell was defeated in his bid for reelection, and that sends a message. But the other corrupt party is being rewarded, as it seems likely the city council will approve the contract with Wichita Water Partners. Its principals sought to influence the mayor by wining and dining. (Literally, they offered to deliver leftover wine to the mayor.) They flattered the mayor with honorifics like Mayor Miracle, Your Eminence, His Highness, Homecoming Queen, Eye Candy, Jethro, and Wine Delivery Guy.

    Besides this, Wichita Water Partners was not honest with the city. The Wichita Eagle reported this: “Rod Young, president of the engineering firm PEC, and Roger McClellan, president of the construction company Wildcat, both acknowledged to The Eagle their relationships with the mayor. They did not disclose those relationships to the city on a form asking about potential conflicts of interest in the water project.” (emphasis added) PEC and Wildcat are part of Wichita Water Partners.

    But the coddling of Longwell worked. After paying the mayor’s $1,000 fee to enter a charity golf tournament, Longwell told them, “I’m going to be super nice to you for a long time.” Longwell switched the basis of awarding the contract, proposing a “design competition.” But only one firm entered the competition, Wichita Water Partners. Jacobs, one of the largest engineering firms, was originally and unanimously preferred by the city’s selection committee. But the company decided not to enter the design competition. The result was only one company participating in the mayor’s “contest.”

    There are important considerations going forward, especially as the city considers spending one billion dollars or more on new projects like a convention center, performing arts center, and other downtown projects:

    • The selection committee had significant concerns regarding Wichita Water Partners and its proposal. Since the city overrode the committee’s strong recommendation, will the recommendation of other similar committees be taken seriously? Will other committees feel their job is important? What about citizen advisory boards?

    • One of the nation’s largest and most respected engineering firms declined to participate in the mayor’s “design contest.” Will the city be able to attract bids from other reputable firms given the way the water plant contract process was changed? Will future bidders fear that the city’s bid process will be changed just before the contract is awarded, after bidders have spent time and money preparing their bids?

    • While Mayor Longwell will be leaving office soon, other city officials who enabled the process — elected and others — are still in place.

    This is not the way to do business, even though the government is not a business. As the Wichita Eagle editorialized: “Longwell steered the council away from its earlier decision on how to award the water plant contract — away from competitive bidding and toward shadier ways of doing business — and that is unacceptable.”

    While Longwell was defeated in an election, the other party to the “shadier ways of doing business” won. That’s bad for the city right now, and bad for the city looking forward.

    Should the city discard the Wichita Water Partners contract this week, as is its right? Undoubtedly, starting the bid process again would add cost and cause further delay. And, given the city’s conduct, would a new bid process attract quality proposals?

    Canceling the contract and starting over is worth deliberation and consideration. Our city’s reputation and respect for process are more important than any single contract, even its largest.

  • Longwell: ‘There is no corruption’

    Longwell: ‘There is no corruption’

    Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell says there is no corruption involving him, but this is only because of loose and sloppy Kansas and Wichita laws.

    In an advertisement in the November 3, 2019 Wichita Eagle, Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell defended himself against charges of corruption. Referring to a recent investigation by the Sedgwick County District Attorney, the ad states:

    In 2018 and 2017, Bennett found I was 100% compliant. In 2016 he found only one instance where I was $21.33 over the annual $500 threshold allowed for “goods and services” received from local companies.

    Here’s what the District Attorney found in his investigation:

    Given the failure of Kansas Statutes Annotated 75-4301a to define “good or services,” the Mayor explained to an investigator with the Office of the District Attorney that he did not believe a round of golf constituted “goods or services.” He further explained that charitable golf outings where the entire expenditure went to charity (situations where the golf course donated their greens fees to the charity) led him to the conclusion that, because the charity received the entire donation, the golfers (including him) derived no financial benefit. As such, he did not believe it necessary to report these outings on his substantial interest form. 1

    This reasoning by Longwell is hairsplitting to the extreme. What’s important is that Longwell accepted gifts from people he later steered a large city contract to. However large or small the gifts, this is wrong.

    In his conclusion, the District Attorney wrote:

    And while I am confident, having exhaustively researched the issue, that, as an act of entertainment, golf qualifies as “goods or services” under Kansas law, it is also true that Kansas Statutes Annotated 75-4301a, et seq., governing Substantial Interest Form filings, offers little guidance. I am not filing a class B misdemeanor under these facts.

    It seems that sloppy Kansas laws are the problem, along with a mayor willing to exploit that weakness.

    Does the city have any laws or regulations on this matter? Here’s an excerpt from the Wichita city code as passed in 2008 (full section below):

    “[Council members] shall refrain from making decisions involving business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors.”

    We also have statutory language that reads “business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors.” But the city attorney, in a question involving former mayor Carl Brewer, felt that these terms are not defined, and therefore the mayor and city council members need not be concerned about compliance with this law. 2

    Today, city hall ethics, at least in the mayor’s chair, have not improved. It’s reasonable to conclude that people who pay the mayor to play in expensive golf tournaments are his friends. People who pay for dinner for the mayor and his wife and describe it as a social gathering (as the district attorney found) are friends. Or, maybe they just want something from the mayor and see an ersatz social relationship as a means to an end. But as we’ve learned recently, the current city attorney says council members “are left to police themselves on that city law,” according to Wichita Eagle reporting. 3

    Is it true, as the mayor’s ad screams in capital letters?

    THERE IS NO CORRUPTION LIKE YOU’VE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE

    There is none, but only because of sloppy Kansas and Wichita laws. But under any commonsense definition, yes, there is corruption. It is not necessary for an act to be illegal to be corrupt; that it is dishonest or fraudulent conduct is enough.

    Should Longwell be re-elected, can we expect reform? I don’t think it’s likely that someone will support laws criminalizing their own past behavior.

    Wichita city code

    Sec. 2.04.050. — Code of ethics for council members.

    Council members occupy positions of public trust. All business transactions of such elected officials dealing in any manner with public funds, either directly or indirectly, must be subject to the scrutiny of public opinion both as to the legality and to the propriety of such transactions. In addition to the matters of pecuniary interest, council members shall refrain from making use of special knowledge or information before it is made available to the general public; shall refrain from making decisions involving business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors; shall refrain from repeated and continued violation of city council rules; shall refrain from appointing immediate family members, business associates, clients or employees to municipal boards and commissions; shall refrain from influencing the employment of municipal employees; shall refrain from requesting the fixing of traffic tickets and all other municipal code citations; shall refrain from seeking the employment of immediate family members in any municipal operation; shall refrain from using their influence as members of the governing body in attempts to secure contracts, zoning or other favorable municipal action for friends, customers, clients, immediate family members or business associates; and shall comply with all lawful actions, directives and orders of duly constituted municipal officials as such may be issued in the normal and lawful discharge of the duties of these municipal officials.

    Council members shall conduct themselves so as to bring credit upon the city as a whole and so as to set an example of good ethical conduct for all citizens of the community. Council members shall bear in mind at all times their responsibility to the entire electorate, and shall refrain from actions benefiting special groups at the expense of the city as a whole and shall do everything in their power to ensure equal and impartial law enforcement throughout the city at large without respect to race, creed, color or the economic or the social position of individual citizens.

    —
    Notes

    1. District Attorney Bennett’s findings concerning Mayor Jeff Longwell. Available at https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/56094/520-pm-oct-17-mayor-longwell-finaldocx.pdf. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. City code on ethical conduct in Wichita. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/city-code-on-ethical-conduct-in-wichita/. ↩
    3. Swaim, Chance. Wichita’s mayor steered multi-million-dollar water plant contract to friends. Wichita Eagle, September 29, 2019. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234701932.html. ↩

  • City code on ethical conduct in Wichita

    Wichita has a city code governing ethical conduct by council members, but it seems to have no teeth.

    Here’s an excerpt from the Wichita city code as passed in 2008 (full section below):

    “[Council members] shall refrain from making decisions involving business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors.”

    When asked about a specific application of this city law relating to former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, the Wichita city attorney supplied this interpretation:

    Related to the Mayor’s participation in the item, yes, City Code advises Council members to “refrain from making decisions involving business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors. … ” but the Code does not provide definitions or limits to these broad categories of constituents. Further, the City Code clearly requires Council members to “vote on all matters coming before the City Council except in those particular cases of conflict of interest. …” The city Code does not define what constitutes a conflict but the Council has historically applied the State law for that definition.

    Applying that State law specific to local municipalities, the Mayor does not have any substantial interest in Douglas Place LLC, and therefore no conflict. Under the State ethics law, there was no requirement that the Mayor recuse himself from voting on the Ambassador Project.

    Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer with major campaign donor Dave Wells of Key Construction. Evidently, Wichita city code did not prohibit Brewer from voting to give millions in contracts and subsidy to Key.
    So we have statutory language that reads “shall refrain,” but Gary Rebenstorf, the city attorney at that time, interpreted that to mean “advises.”

    We also have statutory language that reads “business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors.” But the city attorney felt that these terms are not defined, and therefore the mayor and city council members need not be concerned about compliance with this law.

    I wonder whose interests the city attorney represents. The people of Wichita, who want to be governed in a fair and ethical manner? It doesn’t seem so.

    I wasn’t satisfied with the city attorney’s response, so I and others engaged attorneys to research the law and see if it could be clarified and enforced. We received an opinion that we, as citizens of Wichita, likely did not have standing to bring a lawsuit against either the city or the mayor. We were told that the law would probably find that we suffered no harm. A city council member might have standing, however, because if an ineligible council member voted, that would unlawfully dilute the value of other members’ votes. We attempted to recruit council members to file a suit, but couldn’t find one who was interested.

    I thought that was sad. Today, city hall ethics, at least in the mayor’s chair, have not improved. As we’ve learned this week, the current city attorney says council members “are left to police themselves on that city law,” according to Wichita Eagle reporting. 1

    If the city attorney’s interpretation of this law is controlling, I suggest we strike this section from the city code. Someone who reads this — perhaps a business owner considering Wichita for expansion — might conclude that our city has a code of ethics that is observed by the mayor and council members and enforced by its attorneys.

    Giving that impression, though, would be false — and unethical.

    Wichita city code

    Sec. 2.04.050. — Code of ethics for council members.

    Council members occupy positions of public trust. All business transactions of such elected officials dealing in any manner with public funds, either directly or indirectly, must be subject to the scrutiny of public opinion both as to the legality and to the propriety of such transactions. In addition to the matters of pecuniary interest, council members shall refrain from making use of special knowledge or information before it is made available to the general public; shall refrain from making decisions involving business associates, customers, clients, friends and competitors; shall refrain from repeated and continued violation of city council rules; shall refrain from appointing immediate family members, business associates, clients or employees to municipal boards and commissions; shall refrain from influencing the employment of municipal employees; shall refrain from requesting the fixing of traffic tickets and all other municipal code citations; shall refrain from seeking the employment of immediate family members in any municipal operation; shall refrain from using their influence as members of the governing body in attempts to secure contracts, zoning or other favorable municipal action for friends, customers, clients, immediate family members or business associates; and shall comply with all lawful actions, directives and orders of duly constituted municipal officials as such may be issued in the normal and lawful discharge of the duties of these municipal officials.

    Council members shall conduct themselves so as to bring credit upon the city as a whole and so as to set an example of good ethical conduct for all citizens of the community. Council members shall bear in mind at all times their responsibility to the entire electorate, and shall refrain from actions benefiting special groups at the expense of the city as a whole and shall do everything in their power to ensure equal and impartial law enforcement throughout the city at large without respect to race, creed, color or the economic or the social position of individual citizens.

    —
    Notes

    1. Swaim, Chance. Wichita’s mayor steered multi-million-dollar water plant contract to friends. Wichita Eagle, September 29, 2019. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234701932.html. ↩
  • The power and influence of the Wichita mayor

    The power and influence of the Wichita mayor

    When pursuing a large Wichita city contract, did the winning company lobby all council members, or primarily Mayor Jeff Longwell?

    The role of Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell in the awarding of the contract for the new Wichita water plant has been in the news. A recent Wichita Eagle article showed how the mayor steered the award to a company other than the company recommended by the city’s selection committee. 1

    Central to the story is the relationship between the mayor and the company he favored. There was, according to Eagle reporting, a close relationship including a cash gift that was not disclosed 2 and some eerily chummy emails. 3

    The mayor, however, downplayed his role. In a response from Longwell posted on the city’s Facebook page, he said he is part of a team: “A team that deliberately keeps each other in check. We question and challenge each step, and that is an intentional process designed to ensure we have the best deal for our city.” 4

    Some council members agree. In the Eagle article, two council members were interviewed, Brandon Johnson (district 1, northeast Wichita) and James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita):

    Johnson and Clendenin both downplayed Longwell’s role in awarding the contract, saying the mayor is just one vote.

    “You give the mayor too much credit,” Johnson said.

    “Yeah, this idea that the mayor of the city of Wichita has enough power to make any decision he would like is something that I think is a misconception,” Clendenin said.

    What, then, is the power of the mayor to lead or steer the council in his preferred direction?

    The answer to this question holds the answer: Did the winning company (Wichita Water Partners) lobby, flatter, or gift any Wichita City Council members with anything approaching the consideration directed to Mayor Jeff Longwell?

    —
    Notes

    1. Swaim, Chance. Wichita’s mayor steered multi-million-dollar water plant contract to friends. Wichita Eagle, September 29, 2019. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234701932.html. ↩
    2. “Before Longwell cast the deciding vote, the president of one of the Water Partners’ companies paid for Longwell to enter a $1,000-per-person charity golf tournament. … Nor did Longwell disclose the $1,000 entry fee on a state ethics form for local officials that he filed in February.” ↩
    3. “They frequently referred to each other in emails by nicknames — Your Eminence, His Highness, Homecoming Queen, Eye Candy, Jethro and Wine Delivery Guy, after Young, the president of PEC, offered to drop off to Longwell leftover wine from a previous dinner party.” ↩
    4. Longwell, Jeff. City of Wichita Facebook page. Available at https://www.facebook.com/cityofwichita/posts/2535037446542240. ↩
  • Sedgwick County Commission needs to slow down, get things right

    Sedgwick County Commission needs to slow down, get things right

    Sedgwick County needs to make sure past issues are known and settled before proceeding with hiring a new county manager, writes former commissioner Richard Ranzau.

    While most members of the Sedgwick County Commission are eager to move on from events of the past two years, it’s important to know what really happened. Some important questions:

    • A majority of commissioners wanted to fire former manager Michael Scholes, with chair David Dennis presenting Scholes with an ultimatum on September 28, 2018. Later, in November, the same commissioners hired an outside law firm to investigate Scholes so that a politically correct reason could be given for his dismissal. We need to know more about the real reason why commissioners wanted to fire Scholes.

    • What is contained within the report (identified in county documents as “Management study – Stinson, Leonard & Street”) used as the cover for firing Scholes? The county will not supply the document, citing attorney-client privilege and personnel confidentiality. This allows commissioners to make all sorts of claims that we can’t verify. For example: The many high-level employees that purportedly quit because of Scholes — can’t we get even one name?

    • Some conclusions from the Stinson report has been leaked, and the bad conduct by Scholes was really quite minor.

    • The Wichita Eagle has reported: “Commission Chairman David Dennis said Wednesday [November 26, 2018] that he’s ready to move forward with a probe examining commissioners’ actions and whether they’ve contributed to low morale and an exodus of top county employees.” As Ranzau writes below, the commission is being asked to cancel this investigation.

    County Commission needs to slow down, get things right
    By Richard Ranzau

    Members of the Sedgwick County Commission have two very important decisions to make, and they need to get them both right.

    First, they need to decide if they are going to conduct the badly needed ethics investigation into commissioner misconduct that occurred in 2017 and 2018. Previously, the Commission voted to conduct this investigation but they have yet to follow through. Failed leadership and improper behavior by the some of the commissioners during those years has led to multiple FBI investigations and a soon to be completed KOMA investigation by the District Attorney’s office. The reputation of the Commission has been shattered.

    Public faith and confidence in this once highly respected organization can only be restored if the Commission hires an outside entity to investigate unethical and inappropriate commissioner behavior and to make recommendations for policy changes that could deter future misconduct. This must be an honest and sincere effort by the Commissioners to find out the truth, no matter how painful it may be.

    All staff members and employees should be allowed to fully participate in the investigation without fear of repercussion. Senior staff members with extensive knowledge of what happened, including the interim county manager, should be supportive of this investigation and provide honest and candid information about what they know.

    Citizens may wonder why we need another investigation, given that an expensive effort was recently completed and used to justify the dismissal of the previous county manager. But that investigation was a sham. A majority of commissioners had already decided to fire the manager. They needed an investigation to cover up their real reasons for firing him. This is the behavior that needs to be exposed.

    This investigation needs to be completed BEFORE the Commission makes its second important decision: hiring a new county manager.

    The current rush to appoint the interim county manager without a nationwide search is imprudent for multiple reasons. First, he has intimate knowledge of what happened over the last two years and the public needs to be assured that he will fully support and participate in the ethics investigation.

    Secondly, there is an ongoing effort by four commissioners to put forth a public vote to rescind the decision to proceed with an investigation. Commissioner Howell is being pressed to support this effort, not only by the Chairman, but also the interim county manager and county counselor. In fact, the interim county manager has asked Commissioner Howell to make the motion to end the investigation.

    The fact that the interim county manager would try to coordinate a vote to stop an ethics investigation that he would be a key witness in is as surprising as it is troubling. He knows what happened and he shared many of the same concerns as the previous county manager and county counselor. So why would he support and COORDINATE an effort to cancel this badly needed investigation? Is he under pressure by commissioners?

    The timing of this effort to stop the ethics investigation coupled with the rush to hire a potentially key witness as the new county manager, certainly raises the question as to whether or not there is a quid pro quo going on. I certainly hope this is not the case, but the optics are horrible. The commission does not need another scandal or coverup.

    The Sedgwick County Commission and interim county manager need to take a step back and reconsider what they are doing. Everyone involved needs to demonstrate the courage to do what is right for the community. It is imperative they demonstrate a commitment to open, transparent, and ethical government.

    The citizens need to have confidence that the shenanigans of the past, are in fact, in the past. We can’t afford to have the Commission get this wrong.

  • On big contracts, Wichita has had problems

    On big contracts, Wichita has had problems

    As Wichita prepares to award a large construction contract, let’s hope the city acts in an ethical manner this time.

    As the Wichita City Council prepares to make a decision regarding a contract for the new baseball stadium, the council’s past reputation in these matters can’t be overlooked.

    The controversy over the stadium contract has been covered by the Wichita Eagle: “The Wichita City Council hasn’t officially approved a design-build team for the city’s new $75 million Minor League ballpark, but there’s already been a protest over the recommended group. … At issue in a protest by a competing team is whether the JE Dunn team meets a key requirement to be selected, which is that it has built at least three similar Major or Minor League ballparks.” 1

    The biggest potential for unethical behavior comes from Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell. In 2012, as the Wichita city council was considering the award of the contract for the new airport terminal, Longwell (then a council member) received campaign contributions from executives of Walbridge, a Michigan construction company partnering with Key Construction to build the new Wichita airport terminal. 2

    Two Walbridge contributions were made on July 16, 2012, the day before the council, Longwell included, voted to award the contract to the Key/Walbridge partnership. More contributions from Walbridge arrived on July 20, according to Longwell’s campaign finance reports.

    When questioned about the Michigan contributions, Longwell told the Wichita Eagle, “We often get contributions from a wide variety of sources, including out-of-town people.” But analysis of past campaign finance documents filed by Longwell showed just three out-of-state contributions totaling $1,500. 3

    In deciding the airport contract issue, the council was asked to make decisions involving whether discretion was abused or whether laws were improperly applied. It’s not surprising that Jeff Longwell made these decisions in favor of his campaign contributors. But he shouldn’t have been involved in the decision.

    That was not the first time Jeff Longwell has placed the interests of his campaign contributors ahead of taxpayers. In 2011 the city council, with Longwell’s vote, decided to award Key a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    It’s not only Longwell with problematic behavior in the past. In 2012, before the vote on the airport contract, executives of Key Construction and spouses contributed heavily to the campaigns of both Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) and Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita). These contributions were not known to the public until months after the vote was cast.

    Williams is no longer on the council, but Clendenin remains.

    Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer had his own issues, with a curious set of ethics principles. 4

    The city needs an adult in the room. That person is, or should be, Wichita city manager Robert Layton. In the past he has implemented policies to end the practice of no-bid contracts. We don’t know what will happen this week.

    —
    Notes

    1. Rengers, Carrie. City selects ballpark design-build group; competing bidder questions qualifications. Wichita Eagle, November 29, 2018. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/carrie-rengers/article222372330.html (subscription may be required). ↩
    2. “A campaign finance report filed by Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell contains contributions from executives associated with Walbridge, a Michigan construction company partnering with Key Construction to build the new Wichita airport terminal. … These contributions are of interest because on July 17, 2012, the Wichita City Council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, made a decision in favor of Key and Walbridge that will cost some group of taxpayers or airport customers an extra $2.1 million. Five council members, including Longwell, voted in favor of this decision. Two members were opposed.” Weeks, Bob. Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/michigan-company-involved-in-disputed-wichita-airport-contract-contributes-to-jeff-longwell/. ↩
    3. “Analysis of Longwell’s July 30, 2012 campaign finance report shows that the only contributions received from addresses outside Kansas are the Walbridge contributions from Michigan, which contradicts Longwell’s claim. Additionally, analysis of ten recent campaign finance reports filed by Longwell going back to 2007 found three contributions totaling $1,500 from California addresses.” Weeks, Bob. Jeff Longwell out-of-town campaign contributions. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/jeff-longwell-out-of-town-campaign-contributions/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. The odd ethics of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/odd-ethics-wichita-mayor-carl-brewer/. ↩
  • Sedgwick County Manager epitomizes duty, honor, country

    Sedgwick County Manager epitomizes duty, honor, country

    Statement to Sedgwick County Commission
    By Karl Peterjohn

    As a Sedgwick County citizen and taxpayer, I have been distressed to see news reports about the scandals, FBI and other legal investigations, that involve this county commission. The details of this appalling topic shall remain for another day.

    Today, I am here to praise four county employees who deserve public commendation.

    On May 12, 1962, five star General-of-the-army, Douglas MacArthur, an army officer during World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, gave his famous speech to the army cadets at the West Point military academy. MacArthur, then in the twilight of his life, used the hallowed phrase, “duty, honor, country,” the motto of West Point, in speaking of the obligations that exist for army leaders; past, present, and future.

    I believe that, “Duty, honor, country,” should not be limited to only our military leaders. General MacArthur said, “… teach you … not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm,” and MacArthur goes on to say, “… that the very obsession of public service must be duty, honor, country.”

    General Michael Scholes epitomizes “duty, honor, country.” I repeatedly saw this demonstrated during the years that I had the privilege of working with him while serving on this commission, as well as more recently as he continues to demonstrate his personal integrity.

    While Judge Yost enjoys the same amount of military experience that I possess, and that is none, his distinguished public work, whether it was at the White House over 40 years ago, over a decade of service in both houses of the Kansas legislature including serving as a leader in the Kansas senate, and almost 20 years on the district court bench personifies, “duty, honor, country.”

    General Scholes and Judge Yost are distinguished men of achievement, who possess the diligence, competence, and most importantly, integrity, that I stand to recognize this morning.

    Last week this commission voted 3-2 in another direction. I rise today to thank both commissioners, Jim Howell and Richard Ranzau for voting against the motion to place Judge Yost on leave.

    I also want to praise commissioners Howell and Ranzau for their efforts to provide transparency in this county, as well as protecting taxpayers while providing efficient public services. Howell and Ranzau are pillars of integrity during these county commission scandals. This needs recognition, and I proudly provide as much as this citizen can do.

    These are four men — General Scholes, Judge Yost, Commissioner Howell, and Commissioner Ranzau — are personifying MacArthur’s hallowed words of, “duty, honor, country.”

    As a former Sedgwick County commissioner, I would conclude by recommending that this county commission now proceed to move to receive and file this commendation.

    For video of Peterjohn delivering these remarks at the Sedgwick County Commission meeting on November 14, 2018, click here.

  • Déjà vu scandals in Sedgwick County government

    Déjà vu scandals in Sedgwick County government

    The Sedgwick County Commission scandals are an outrage for me. I must speak out against the appalling revelations that provide explicit evidence of illegal misconduct in our county government, writes Karl Peterjohn.

    Déjà vu scandals in Sedgwick County government

    By Karl Peterjohn

    During the Watergate scandal the press repeatedly stated that the campaign break-in was not the primary crime, but the cover up involving the White House was. These scandals eventually led to criminal convictions, and ultimately, to the resignation of the president.

    Sedgwick County government now appears to have multi-part scandals. It is not clear whether these scandals will result in convictions and resignations, but these scandals are growing.

    The November 2, 2018 news conference held by the attorney for county counselor Eric Yost revealed that the FBI investigation that initially began with Commissioner O’Donnell has now grown to involve two other commissioners, David Unruh and David Dennis. Commissioner O’Donnell has been indicted on a number of felony charges, and is now awaiting a January 2019 trial in federal court. He has refused to resign from the commission.

    Mr. Yost revealed at his news conference that in the wake of the initial O’Donnell scandal, an effort was being made by these three commissioners, O’Donnell, Unruh, and Dennis, to remove county manager Scholes from his position. Scholes’ mistake was cooperating with the FBI in the initial criminal investigation of Commissioner O’Donnell.

    Mr. Yost’s problem with the three commissioners seems to have been pointing out the improper conduct by these three commissioners concerning Mr. Scholes, and in doing so, trying to protect Sedgwick County from this improper and illegal conduct. In doing so, Yost was trying to prevent the county from being exposed to legal liabilities for this outrageous misconduct occurring in the on-going effort to fire county manager Scholes. This misconduct is the latest scandalous revelation. This misconduct could lead to further criminal charges against these three members of the county commission.

    The FBI refuses to respond to press inquiries of what or who they are investigating. However, we now know that the FBI is investigating commissioners at the Sedgwick County courthouse. Mr. Yost revealed Friday that he spent a total of 3.5 hours being interviewed by FBI agents on two occasions. The FBI has also interviewed other county employees.

    It is also clear that the other two members of the county commission, Richard Ranzau and Jim Howell, were not participants in the commission majority’s egregious misconduct. Sadly, election mailers and campaign material from their political opponents, or their political allies, are claiming that is not the case. Both Ranzau and Howell have behaved in an exemplary way concerning this situation and deserve public praise, not the misinformation that occurs all too often in today’s political environment.

    Ranzau has been especially outspoken in condemning his three colleagues who have created this ongoing scandal that will stretch well beyond election day. While information from Yost’s news conference was a front-page story in the November 3 Wichita Eagle, it is not clear that the local news media’s coverage will focus here for very long. Courthouse scandals usually have the potential to impact an election, but not in this case. Commissioner Unruh is retiring, and Dennis and O’Donnell aren’t on the 2018 election ballot.

    Much of this information would not have become public if it hadn’t been for Commissioner Dennis’ public comments criticizing Mr. Yost. Commissioner Dennis’ criticism of Mr. Yost created a way to reveal a lot more information about this part of the commission majority’s scandal. However, a great deal more information remains to be revealed. I believe that more criminal charges are likely.

    Where does this county scandal stand right now?

    Commissioner Unruh will be leaving office in early January, but the ethical and legal cloud over his head will remain. His county commission record will be deeply tarnished regardless of how long it takes to resolve these scandals. Unruh has already been exposed as petty, vindictive, and guilty of scandalous misconduct.

    Commissioner Dennis made a huge blunder in publicly criticizing the county commission’s chief lawyer. It is now clear that Mr. Yost, a former district court judge as well as elected official, has a law degree and Commissioner Dennis doesn’t. By criticizing Yost, Dennis unintentionally provided the legal means for revealing a portion of the FBI investigation of these three commissioners, details of the misconduct allegations, and revealing important county information that had not been on the public record. Commissioner Dennis has expanded these scandals with his bluster from the commission bench.

    Both Unruh and Dennis could eventually end up following Commissioner O’Donnell into federal court as defendants. Commissioner O’Donnell remains at the center of this scandal with his pending criminal charges. I hope that the wheels of justice move quickly. I believe that it is possible, with the new information revealed last week, that Commissioner O’Donnell may face additional charges that expand his already sizable federal indictments.

    This situation is bad for Sedgwick County and our community. These scandals could eventually generate other investigations, possibly by the Kansas attorney general.

    In 2016, candidate David Dennis was successful in defeating me in the hard-fought primary election battle for the third district GOP county commission nomination. Mr. Dennis won the general election. He became a county commissioner in January 2017. This year, Commissioner Dennis was elected by his commission colleagues to chair the commission.

    I know all five commissioners in varying ways as well as the county staff who served with me during the eight years, from 2009 to 2017, that I was a county commissioner. It was an honor and privilege to serve on the county commission. Mr. Scholes and Mr. Yost are two of the best public servants I had the privilege to work with while I was on the commission. Their ethics and integrity are exemplary.

    These scandals are an outrage for me. I must speak out against the appalling revelations that provide explicit evidence of illegal misconduct in our county government.