Voice For Liberty

Tag: Government transparency

  • Pay-to-play laws are needed in Wichita and Kansas

    In the wake of scandals, some states and cities have passed “pay-to-play” laws. These laws often prohibit political campaign contributions by those who seek government contracts, or the laws may impose special disclosure requirements.

    Many people make campaign contributions to candidates whose ideals and goals they share. This is an important part of our political process. But when reading campaign finance reports for members of the Wichita City Council, one sees the same names appearing over and over, often making the maximum allowed contribution to candidates. Their spouses also contribute.

    And when one looks at the candidates these people contribute to, you notice that often there’s no commonality to the political goals and ideals of the candidates. Some people contribute equally to liberal and conservative council members. Then, when these people appear in the news after having received money from the Wichita City Council, it snaps into place: These campaign donors are not donating to those whose ideals they agree with. They’re donating so they can line their own pockets.

    Some states and cities have taken steps to reduce this harmful practice. New Jersey is notable for its New Jersey Local Unit Pay-To-Play Law. In a nutshell, the law affects many local units of government and the awarding of contracts having a value of over $17,500. The law affects contracts awarded by other than a “fair and open process,” which basically means a contract process open to bidding. For other contracts, here is the summary of the law:

    A municipal or county government agency cannot award a contract without using a fair and open process if the contractor …

    • is a contributor to a candidate committee or a political party committee where a member of the party is serving in an elective public office of that municipality or county, and, either …
    • made “reportable” contributions (those in excess of $300) during the year prior to the award, and/or …
    • makes contributions during the life of the contract.

    The New Jersey law requires that businesses seeking government contracts certify they have not made contributions that would bar them from eligibility. It also contains provisions that contributions from a business owner’s spouse and children will be deemed to be from the business itself. For corporations, the contributions of principals, partners, officers, and directors, and their spouses, are considered to be from the corporation itself for purposes of the law.

    Alabama, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Ohio, and South Dakota are other states with some form of pay-to-play laws. Some of these are being challenged in the courts.

    It’s not only states that have such laws. Cities, too, are passing them.

    In 2009 Dallas passed a law, as described in a post on the Pay to Play Law Blog: “The ethics package contains numerous changes to existing lobbyist registration and disclosure requirements, City Council zoning powers and the disclosure of gifts to Council members. Most relevant to the pay-to-play space is that anyone bidding on a city contract is now prohibited from making donations during the bid period. Additionally, ‘major’ zoning applicants can no longer make contributions to Council members during the window which begins on the date of public notice of the zoning case, and which ends 60 days after the zoning case is resolved. Such changes are not too surprising in this instance, given that the scandal involving Hill revolved around favorable treatment for developers.”

    Notably, the Dallas law was in response to special treatment for real estate developers — the very issue Wichita is facing now as it prepares to pour millions into the pockets of a small group of favored — and highly subsidized — downtown developers.

    Smaller cities, too, have these laws. A charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.” The population of Santa Ana is 324,528, which is just a little smaller than Wichita.

    But Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life. Those who want money from the council see it that way.

    And citizens may remember the 2008 campaign for a bond issue for USD 259, the Wichita public school district. In my reporting of the campaign contributions made in support of the bond spending, I wrote: “One analysis finds that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, was given by contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction.”

    The firm of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was a standout contributor to the bond effort, both in terms of cash contributions and in-kind contributions. Not surprisingly, that firm was awarded a contract for plan management services for the bond issue. The value of this contract is one percent of the value of the bond issue, or $3.7 million, and the firm will undoubtedly earn millions more for those projects on which it serves as architect.

    In Kansas, campaign finance reports are filed by candidates and available to citizens, although some have problems with the timing of the filings. But many politicians don’t want these contributions discussed, at least in public. Recently Wichita Council Member Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) expressed concern over the potential award of a $6 million construction contract, paid for with city funds, without an open bidding process. The contract is likely to go to Key Construction, a firm whose principals — and spouses — regularly appear on campaign finance reports, making the maximum allowed contribution to a wide variety of candidates.

    For expressing his concern, O’Donnell was roundly criticized by many other council members, and especially by Mayor Carl Brewer. Video of the mayor’s remarks may be viewed at Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer addresses critics.

    I can understand how council members don’t want to discuss their campaign contributions from those they’re about to give money to. It stinks. It causes citizens to be cynical of their government and withdraw from participation in civic affairs. It causes government to grow. It leads to more government planning of our lives, as is happening in Wichita. Pay-to-play laws can help.

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer to critics: stop grandstanding

    Last week’s meeting of the Wichita City Council provided a window into the attitude of Wichita elected officials, particularly Mayor Carl Brewer. Through their actions, and by their words, we see a government that cares little for the rule of law and good government, and one that is disrespectful to citizens who call attention to this.

    At issue was the circumvention of a statutorily required public hearing. In order to grant subsidies to a development team lead by David Burk of Marketplace Properties, the city is required to hold a public hearing, which it scheduled for September 13th. That schedule wasn’t fast enough for Burk, so at its August 9th meeting the council approved a letter of intent which formalizes the city’s desire to do the things that were to be the subject of the public hearing.

    I, along with others, contend that this action — issuing the letter of intent — reduces the September 13th public hearing to a meaningless exercise. It’s true that several times city bureaucrats and elected officials assured citizens that the letter is non-binding and doesn’t mean the city will go through with the desires expressed in the letter. But I don’t think they believe that themselves, and the language of City Manager Bob Layton reveals so. In the end, the public hearing is reduced to — as the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman aptly noted — “a pointless afterthought.” See Wichita City Council bows to special interests.

    This action is not good government, and it’s not open and transparent government, despite the claims of Mayor Brewer. It goes against our country’s principle of the rule of law, which holds that our laws and orderly procedures are more important than any single person.

    Almost as troubling is the attitude of Mayor Brewer and others in city hall towards citizens who oppose their plans. Brewer — perhaps in an effort to maintain a sense of decorum or apparent integrity — does not mention the names of those he criticizes. This allows him to appear noble, but without being accountable to actual people, and the public, for the things he says.

    John Todd, an activist and ally of mine who speaks at council meetings frequently — which means, in his case, about once or maybe twice a month — told me of his concerns: “It appears disingenuous to me for the mayor to unilaterally dress down citizens who address the council, with no opportunity for citizen rebuttal. The veiled message that comes through this process is this: ‘If you don’t agree with the mayor and council’s position on any issue, please shut up.’”

    Todd is referring to the common practice of the mayor and some council members, notably Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita), to criticize opponents after they’ve completed their testimony and returned to the audience, when there is no opportunity for citizens to respond.

    At the August 9th meeting, the mayor criticized his political opponents for making use of the opportunity to address the council, and by extension, the people who may be watching on television or the internet: “I hope that today, all of this grandstanding that I saw coming from some of the public and I saw from some of the council members, and questioning council members, elected officials’ integrity — unless you have proof, just because you have a camera here, that there is something you shouldn’t be doing. … This whole thing that I saw going on here today remind me so much of a previous administration where individuals were standing up and thank God we have the cameras here. The media’s here every single meeting.”

    What’s particularly deplorable about the mayor’s remarks is that he’s criticizing people for speaking at a public hearing. Yes, city officials say the agenda item was only to consider a letter of intent that does not bind the city council. But that legalistic interpretation ignores the practical political reality that this meeting was, de facto, the public hearing for this project.

    This is not the first time the mayor has complained about his critics. In the past, the mayor has said: “We need every person’s ideas, recommendations, and their opinion. … Being quiet and then complaining about it later isn’t going to be good for you or the community.”

    But when citizens take the mayor’s advice — showing initiative, not being quiet, and stating opinions beforehand — now the mayor calls that grandstanding.

    The mayor has also called his critics “naysayers” and complained that they have received too much media attention.

    The mayor should take notice, however, that most people who care about public affairs and policy are severely disappointed with news media coverage of city hall events. The resources of news gathering agencies, especially newspapers, are severely depleted as compared to the past. In my coverage of a talk given by former Wichita Eagle editor Davis Merritt, I wrote this: “A question that I asked is whether the declining resources of the Wichita Eagle might create the danger that local government officials feel they can act under less scrutiny, or is this already happening? Merritt replied that this has been going on for some time. ‘The watchdog job of journalism is incredibly important and is terribly threatened.’ When all resources go to cover what must be covered — police, accidents, etc. — there isn’t anything left over to cover what should be covered. There are many important stories that aren’t being covered because the ‘boots aren’t on the street anymore,’ he said.” See Former Wichita Eagle editor addresses journalism, democracy, May 11, 2009.

    In his remarks to me, John Todd wrote: “Diversity of opinion and the open discussion of divergent opinions are important parts of good government.” But citizens who observe the actions of the Wichita City Council — the issuance of this letter of intent being only the most recent example — and who sense the attitude of the mayor and some council members towards those who express opinions outside the orthodoxy — are likely to conclude, as many do, that it’s just not worth the effort to get involved.

  • Wichita City Council procedure: A citizen’s perspective

    By Shirley Koehn

    Remarks by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer at the August 9, 2011 meeting of the Wichita City Council referenced the discussion and testimony just prior, dealing with an agenda item scheduled for a vote (Letter of Intent to Douglas Place LLC). Mayor Brewer’s remarks were disconcerting and seemed aimed at scolding both members of the public and one council member for voicing opinions differing from the council majority.

    Members of the public speaking about the issuing of a letter of intent to Douglas Place LLC raised legitimate questions as to the procedures. Logical procedure would be first the required public hearing (with published notice to allow time for public participation), followed by council vote at its next meeting. Reversal of this order lends itself to doubts by the public as to whether this was actually an open procedure. The question raised by one council member as to whether the construction contracts (building of the parking garage) should be open to bid seems a legitimate question, not one intended to malign anyone’s integrity. It was also noted that the developer in question made a $500 contribution to each council member’s last campaign, except to the council member speaking (who is usually the dissenting voice on public private partnerships). The campaign contribution relation to the frequency of the developer’s seeking public subsidies is probably a factor any good investigative reporter or member of the public might question. In the interest of transparency, relevant contribution(s) should accompany public documents coming before the council. (It is a common for such statements regarding financial interest, ownership, etc to be made in the interest of transparency). Judging by the mayor’s remarks, it appears that once elected, each council member is to forget his core values and acquiesce to the majority of the council.

    It is the responsibility of council members to protect public interests, not to protect interests of a select group. I think Mayor Brewer is confusing legitimate public inquiry with attacking the Mayor and members of the council. Have we reached the point where a council member cannot question the majority or when a member of the public cannot challenge the procedures and conclusions of the council?

    I have spoken several times before the council. The first time, I received what might be called a reprimand for essentially being uninformed. The comment from Mayor Brewer was to the effect that the mayor and council were elected to do the city’s business and they know best. Since that time I have seen the same sentiment voiced to newcomers.

    In spite of this, I and others continue to make our voices heard. We work hard to research, to operate on as much fact as we can find and be respectful of the positions the Mayor and Council members hold. At the same time, I believe members of the public, from various socioeconomic levels deserve to be heard, with respect, by the mayor and council.

    “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that … it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” — Milton Friedman

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday March 9, 2011

    Kansas legislature website. It’s getting better, and now has — by my recollection — all the functionality of the site it replaced. But there are still some issues. The search feature uses a Google site-specific search, which is good in many ways. But trying to find if there’s any legislation this year concerning sales tax? Not so easy. … The rosters of members are displayed in panels of 12 members of a time. For the House there are 11 such panels. I wonder on which panel I’ll find the member I’m looking for? … Too many documents are still being delivered in OpenOffice doc format, which many people will not be able to use.

    Kansas smoking ban. The Hutchinson News has reported and editorialized on the statewide smoking ban. In Hutch club owner wants to see measure repealed, Sheila Martin expresses her concern for the small business owners who are being harmed by the smoking ban. The booklet Martin created that the article refers to may be read here Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet. Then the newspaper editorialized against the smoking ban, writing “Eight months since it took effect, the local jury is in on Kansas’ statewide smoking law. It has hurt sales at some drinking establishments — no doubt, in turn, hurting state and local sales tax receipts — and it was doubtful that it stopped anyone from smoking or saved many from exposure to secondhand smoke.”

    Fighting government secrecy. Announcing a television show regarding government transparency, the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government writes: “Open government is essential to a democracy. But it’s often hard to find that vital government transparency — and to get public access to public records, even when the law is on your side. “What is your government hiding?” is the focus of a town hall panel set at 4:00 to 5:00 pm Saturday, March 12, at the First United Methodist Church, 330 N. Broadway, in downtown Wichita. The event will be taped and shown on KAKE-TV and affiliated stations around the state at 10 am Sunday, March 13, as part of the national celebration of Sunshine Week (March 13-19). … ‘The Mike and Mike Show’ will headline the meeting. Media attorney Mike Merriam of Topeka will join University of Kansas law professor Mike Kautsch in a interactive presentation on media law, as well as how citizens can use the Kansas Open Records Act and the Kansas Open Meetings Act. … The show also will feature a panel on the importance of open government led by the League of Women Voters of Wichita. The audience is invited to ask questions. Refreshments will be available at a reception afterward. …KPTS-TV, Channel 8 in Wichita, will rebroadcast the show at 7 pm, Thursday, March 24. Those interested are asked to arrive in time to be seated by 3:45 pm. The event is sponsored by the Kansas Sunshine Coalition, the LWV and the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University.

    Kansas judicial selection. The Wall Street Journal takes notice of the need for judicial selection reform in Kansas, writing “Kansas is the only state that gives the members of its bar a majority on the judicial nominating commission. That commission also handles the nominations for state Supreme Court justices, and changing that would require a state constitutional amendment. The Sunflower State is nonetheless off to a good start at making judicial appointments more than a preserve of the lawyers guild.” … Kansas University Law Professor Stephen J. Ware is the foremost authority on the method of judicial selection in Kansas and the need for reform. His paper on this topic is Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is published by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Further reporting by me is at Kansas judicial selection needs reform, says law professor.

    Kansas Education Liberty Act. A strong school choice measure has been introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives. The bill is HB 2367 and may be read at the Kansas Legislature website. The measure’s supporters have a website at supportkela.com. From the bill’s supporters: “This bill authorizes specific non-profit organizations to grant scholarships to students to attend a qualified private or public school of their parents’ choice. These scholarships are funded through tax-credit eligible contributions from individual Kansans and corporations. State taxpayers will spend significantly less on each scholarship than they currently spend per pupil in public schools. This bill reduces education related spending from the state’s general fund and reduces the budget deficit. In addition, public schools will still have access to the majority of the federal and local taxpayer funding; so with each student who chooses another educational setting, public schools will have more funding per remaining student. Perhaps even more significant, our children will enjoy improved education outcomes in both public and private education in the state of Kansas with increased parental and community involvement.” … While the Kansas education establishment fiddles with “reforms” such as whether to grant tenure in three or five years, actual reform measures like this are what is needed.

    What … it’s not about the whales? “Environmental policy is not driven by tree-hugging activists, earnest liberal bloggers, or ecologically minded citizens. Instead, it flows from the lobbyists and executives of well-connected multinational corporations and built-for-subsidy startups that see profit in the loan guarantees, handouts, mandates, and tax credits Congress creates in the name of saving the planet.” Timothy P. Carney explains more in Meet the lobbyist who turns ‘green’ into greenbacks.

    Wichita council candidates. Now that the city primary election is over and each district has two candidates for the April 5 general election, this week’s meeting (March 11) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Wichita City Council candidates. Invited are from district 2: Pete Meitzner and Charlie Stevens. From district 4: Joshua Blick and Michael O’Donnell. From district 5: Jeff Longwell and Lynda Tyler. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    Common Sense — Revisited author in Wichita. Clyde Cleveland will visit Wichita to speak at the Holiday Inn at 549 S. Rock Road on Wednesday, March 16th at 7:00 pm. The event’s promotional poster reads: “Join Clyde Cleveland, the author of Common Sense — Revisited and 2002 libertarian candidate for Iowa Governor for an eye-opening presentation on our Government and how we can restore it to the Republic in its original form. Learn about Indigenous and Surrogate Powers, and how Americans have surrendered their ‘Sentient Power’. The good news is, we can peacefully, and lawfully, re-inhabit our Sovereign status and reclaim a bottom-up, ‘By, of, and For the People,’ Republic form of Government. … This is what was intended by our founding fathers, and for which many others have given their lives to protect. Following the presentation Clyde will discuss how we can participate in rebuilding our State and National Republics.” Cleveland’s website is Common Sense Revisited. He will also speak in Overland Park on March 17th.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday February 9, 2011

    ACLU leader to speak in Wichita. On Friday (February 11) the speaker at the meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club will be Doug Bonney, who is Chief Council and Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri. His topic will be “150 Years of Kansas Liberty.” This speaking invitation has caused a bit of controversy, with some Pachyderm Club members — and non-members — criticizing the selection of a speaker whose group is associated with liberal political causes. But the invitation is in line with the club’s mission of political education, as stated on the national Pachyderm website: “To promote practical political education and the dissemination of information on our political system.” Previous speakers who don’t fit the club’s Republican Party affinity have included Democrats WSU political science professor Dr. Mel Kahn and Kansas school board member Dr. Walt Chappell, and Jack Cole of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, whose mission is to end the war on drugs. All these speakers provided valuable information and education. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    Information added to KansasOpenGov.org. KansasOpenGov.org, a government transparency initiative provided by the Kansas Policy Institute, has added new sections of data to its offerings. Added this week are checkbook and payroll registers for school districts in Topeka, Wichita, Great Bend, Colby, and Pittsburg. An interesting observation: Wichita has two union stewards on the payroll. The Wichita school district says the cost of compensation, benefits, etc. are reimbursed by the union, but while serving as union employees, they continue to build up seniority and earn credit towards their taxpayer-funded pensions. More information from KPI is at More districts added — taxpayers have new tools.

    “The Citizen” launches. This week a new print newspaper launched covering Kansas City and the states of Kansas and Missouri. It’s available in an online version, too. Named the citizen, it describes itself as “We’re a new monthly newspaper for the Kansas City metro area. Our first issue is available right now. Are we biased? Yes — just like every other newspaper and magazine. Are we different? Yes — because we’re not afraid to admit that things like a love of freedom and a belief in personal responsibility matter, and they inform what we choose to cover. We’re free to readers and ad-supported.”

    Economic development in Wichita explained. Maybe. You be the judge, as Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and city council member Janet Miller explain. Video here.

    Limits on state agency advertising proposed. Kansas state treasurer Ron Estes has proposed a ban on appearances by elected officials in public service announcements using state resources 60 days before an election. This was an issue before last year’s election in November, mostly for the treasurer and secretary of state contests. Said Estes: “These public service announcements are intended to educate the citizens of Kansas on the programs available by the state to help serve their best interests. They are not intended to serve as a free campaign commercial for an incumbent before an election.” More information is here. After this issue is handled, I propose a next step: reigning in the agency websites, which functioned as campaign billboards for most elected state agency heads.

    Wichita lame ducks to take junket. As The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman explains, Wichita city council members with less than a month left to serve should not be traveling to conferences whose nominal mission is to help them be better council members. But Paul Gray, Sue Schlapp and Roger Smith will do just that, based on action taken in yesterday’s council meeting. As Holman writes: “All governing boards should curb junkets for members approaching the exits. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the air travel, hotel rooms and networking and schmoozing of elected officials whose service is all but over.”

  • Wichita school district makes transparency effort

    Recently USD 259, the Wichita public school district, placed five month’s of checkbook register data on its website. This is a good move, and we should thank the district for doing this.

    But we need to remember that the Wichita school district is very late in making this transparency effort, and the district’s past attitudes towards citizens needs to be remembered.

    In the past, the district has made this checkbook information available each month. It was made available as a pdf document, which is not nearly as useful as an Excel spreadsheet, which is the format of the most recent months.

    Furthermore, the pdf documents would be on the district’s website for less than a week. Board member Lynn Rogers explained that the district didn’t have space on its servers to hold these documents. That explanation is total nonsense, as the pdf documents are a mere fraction of the size of video files that the district hosted on its servers.

    That type of misinformation is what citizens have come to expect from Rogers and the rest of the district. Not only misinformation, but hostility towards citizens and their records requests. Rogers has told citizens that records requests are a “burden” on the Wichita school district and interfere with its ability to educate children.

    Other frustrations with getting information from the Wichita district and its interim superintendent Martin Libhart led me to conclude, as the title of an article: Wichita School District: Accountability is on Our Terms.

    So while citizens should thank the Wichita school district for its recent actions, we’ll have to wait a while to see if the prevailing attitude of hostility towards citizens and their requests for information disappears.

  • For Wichita city government, open records are not valued

    As a condition of renewing its contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, I asked that the Wichita City Council require that the agency comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. As has been the case before, the city council and city staff say they are in favor of open records and government transparency, but their actions indicate that they are not.

    After my remarks, which are presented below, City manager Bob Layton said that my attack on the city attorney was unfair, that it was not he who made this decision not to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. Instead, he said the decision was made by the Convention and Visitors Bureau’s own attorney. John Rolfe, the Bureau’s president, said he believes that his organization has been open in their explanations of how they spend their funds, at least to the City.

    Rolfe also repeated his mistaken belief that I’ve discussed with the Bureau’s attorney how I might gain access to the information that I’ve requested. These discussions have not happened. That’s not the way the Kansas Open Records Law works. Citizens do not negotiate with agencies to gain access to records. The law says that citizens make requests, and agencies comply.

    Furthermore, the duty of the Bureau’s attorney is to protect and advance the interests of his client, not the interests of the public. The fact that the city council and the city manager are comfortable with this arrangement is disturbing.

    Any member of the city council could have followed my suggestion to make a motion that the city ask that the Convention and Visitors Bureau to simply agree that they are in fact a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. But none of them did.

    Council member Jim Skelton asked questions several times seeking to find out how the agency spends its funds, but he did not give “how” a specific meaning. The city and most agencies would like to present simple and broad budgets or income statements to account for their spending. But this level of disclosure, which is what the Convention and Visitors Bureau provides to the public, is not sufficient.

    Here’s an example why: Last year a trustee for Labette Community College noticed that a check number was missing from a register. Based on his inquiry, it was revealed that the missing check was used to reimburse the college president for a political contribution. While it was determined that the college president committed no crime by making this political contribution using college funds, this is an example of the type of information that citizens may want regarding the way public funds are spent.

    This is the type of information that I have requested. It is what is needed to perform effective oversight. Three agencies — Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, and Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — have all refused to comply with requests like this. The city council members and staff have agreed with their positions.

    This is not transparency. This is not accountability.

    When citizens believe that agencies are not complying with the Kansas Open Records Act, they have three options. One is to ask the Kansas Attorney General for help. But the policy of the Attorney General is to refer all cases to the local District Attorney, which is what I have done. The other way to proceed is for a citizen to pursue legal action at their own expense.

    The Sedgwick County District Attorney has had my case since December 17 of last year. That office has been working on the case, and a decision is expected soon.

    No matter which way the District Attorney decides, the City of Wichita, its quasi-governmental taxpayer-supported agencies, and their hostility to open records is a matter that the Kansas Legislature should notice. We need a better records law.

    Following are remarks I delivered today to the Wichita City Council regarding the city’s compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I’m recommending that the city not renew its contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau until that organization decides to follow Kansas law, specifically the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I’ve requested records from this agency. Its response is that the agency is not a “public agency” and therefore is not subject to the open records law.

    Here’s why the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau is a public agency subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. KSA 45-217 (f)(1) states: “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    The Kansas Attorney General’s office offers additional guidance: “A public agency is the state or any political or taxing subdivision, or any office, officer, or agency thereof, or any other entity, receiving or expending and supported in whole or part by public funds. It is some office or agency that is connected with state or local government.”

    According to its 2008 annual report, 89% of Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau’s revenue came from the transient guest tax. I suggest that this qualifies as supported “in whole or in part” by public funds.

    The Kansas Open Records Act has an exception, but that does not apply to this agency. There’s no rational or reasonable basis for the this agency’s assertion that it is not a public agency subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.

    Mr. Mayor and council members, look at the plain language of the Kansas Open Records Act, as I’ve explained. Look at the intent of the Kansas Legislature as embodied in the statute: “It is declared to be the public policy of the state that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.”

    The policy of the state is that records should be open. Governmental bodies shouldn’t be looking for excuses to avoid complying with the law, as has the City of Wichita and this agency, and has two other similar agencies. Especially when the reasons the city legal staff has used are wrong, both in terms of the letter of the law and its intent.

    Now I realize that Mr. Gary Rebenstorf, the Wichita City Attorney, disagrees with my contention that this agency is in fact a public agency as defined by the Kansas Open Records Act. Mr. Rebenstorf has been wrong several times before when issuing guidance to this council regarding the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which is similar to the Open Records Act. He’s taken the blame and apologized for these violations. He was quoted in the Wichita Eagle as saying “I will make every effort to further a culture of openness and ensure that like mistakes are avoided in the future.”

    But with regard to my records requests, he’s advised this council to keep records closed when the law and the public policy of this state says they should be open.

    He, or perhaps whoever is instructing him as to what opinions to write, is hostile towards towards open records and citizens’ right to know.

    Mayor, you’ve spoken about “building public trust in government” and working to achieve greater transparency. Manager Layton has as a goal “Promoting transparency by providing timely, accurate and relevant information.”

    This is a chance for the political leadership of this city to make a decision: does the city promote transparency by deciding itself what information to release, or does it agree to citizen-driven accountability, where citizens are in charge?

    It’s not only this agency. The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition are similarly situated.

    As a condition of renewing the city’s contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, I ask that this council instruct the Bureau to follow the Kansas Open Records Act.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday November 12, 2010

    Dilts drops campaign for city council. Jason Dilts has announced that he is ending his campaign for a position on the Wichita City Council. He had been running for the district 4 position currently held by Paul Gray, who is precluded from running again by the city’s term limit law. While Dilts’ politics are liberal and might have been expected to depart from those of the incumbent, Gray voted for nearly every spending measure that came before the council. … Dilts’ departure leaves this district without any publicly declared candidates. The filing deadline for city and school board elections is January 24, 2011. The primary election is March 1, and the general election is on April 5. These elections are non-partisan, meaning that candidates run without party identification, although everyone who cares knows who belongs to which party. In the primary, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.

    OTB: One-term Barack. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics predicts a dim future for President Barack Obama and his chances for reelection. Sabato’s most recent “Crystal Ball” column starts off with “The wreckage of the Democratic Party is strewn just about everywhere. President Obama’s carefully constructed 2008 Electoral College breakthrough is now just broken, a long-ago memory of what might have been a lasting shift in partisan alignment.” After presenting the evidence, Sabato concludes: “There’s only one logical conclusion to be drawn: President Barack Obama is down for the count, will have an early lame duck presidency, and will be out of the White House in two years.”

    Project Downtown: The Master Plan for Wichita. The “final draft” version of the plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita is now available. Click on Project Downtown: The Master Plan for Wichita. Perhaps after the “final draft” comes the “first permanent version?” Next week the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the plan. The meeting is at 1:30 pm Thursday Nov. 18, in the tenth floor conference room at Wichita City Hall, 455 N. Main. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on this project. I’m thinking I’ll be there.

    Wichita city hall garage closing. Letter to Wichita Eagle, in part: “The bureaucrats reserve for themselves convenient services, while those they are supposed to serve do without and are exposed to parking-meter violations and parking fines. Wichita government has a history of poor service to its citizens. Recent examples include the mismanagement of the Wichita water utility and resulting increases in our water bills, and the increased fees assessed to homeowners for home protection alarms. Yet we see good-old-boy deals on below-market rate loans and tax incentives to every project that comes before city officials, worthy or not.”

    Some Kansas counties voted against judges. Last week’s elections in Kansas offered voters the opportunity to vote whether several Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals justices should be retained in office. Voters decided to retain all by roughly a two-to-one margin. But some Kansas counties voted against retaining the judges. In particular, some western Kansas counties, Cherokee county in extreme southeastern Kansas, and Coffey county in east-central Kansas voted against the judges. A Kansas Watchdog story asked Fort Hays State University political science professor Chapman Rackaway for his analysis. He said “I think you’re seeing more an expression of a philosophy than a particular agenda against these particular justices.” He noted “A more libertarian streak runs strong in western Kansas, and along with that comes a philosophy of ‘throw the bums out.’” He also says that “I think if you ran a correlation of votes you’d find that the strongest Libertarian and Republican results would come from some of the counties you’ve pointed out. In the end, then, this is more about general change than it is a specific policy or judge.”

    Health insurance profits. Watching liberal media so you don’t have to: Cenk Uygur, who appears on the liberal television network MSNBC, reported on the profits of health insurance companies. He said that health insurance companies earned $9.3 billion in profits for the first three months of the year, up 41 percent in the last year, adding “Do we really want to leave decisions about our health and our lives to a corporation whose sole purpose is to make money off of us? They get billions in profits by taking in more money from us than they pay out for our care. I’m not sure that makes a lot of sense.” First: citing a number like these profit figures without providing context means very little. Health insurance company profits — in terms of the industry’s size — have been low in recent years. Second: Have the insurance companies figured out how to the “game” the Obamacare plan? It wouldn’t be the first time large companies have co-opted government regulation for their own profit. Third: Do you — as does Uygur — trust the government to make decisions regarding your health care? The idea of a benevolent government paternally caring for our best interests is dangerous. Profit is a more reliable motive. The problem is that health insurance companies compete in a highly regulated market, where the profit motive is not fully able to express itself. Contrast the market for automobile insurance, where companies compete vigorously for business. In that industry, complaints of companies refusing to pay legitimate claims are rare. That’s because with auto insurance, consumers have a wide variety of companies to select from. That’s not the case with health insurance, where the choice for many people is made by their employer. Dissatisfied consumers have little ability to switch to another company.

    KansasOpenGov.org revamped. The Kansas Policy Institute announces a major revision of its government transparency website KansasOpenGov.org. I’ll have a longer article about this website next week.

  • GovTrack.us helps citizens watch Congress

    The website GovTrack.us is a great resource for citizens who are interested in the United States Congress. With the rapid expansion of government in the recent past, this is something we should all be concerned with.

    By using GovTrack.us, you can search for bills by their bill number, words in the bill, the bill sponsors, and other ways. Once you’ve found the bill, you can read its text and see its status as it works its way through Congress. What’s really useful is to add a tracker to the bill, so that you can be notified — either on the site itself or through email or RSS feed — when there’s new information about the bill.

    If you’re interested in information about particular members of Congress, you can find them by name, zip code, or by clicking on a map. Once found, GovTrack.us reports some useful information.

    One thing reported is the member’s position across the political spectrum. This is done through a statistical analysis of cosponsorship of bills. Kansas Sen. Brownback is identified through this analysis as a “far-right Republican,” while Sen. Roberts is also a “far-right Republican,” a change from his characterization as a “rank-and-file Republican” when I looked at this website in June.

    This analysis also reports that Roberts is “somewhere between a leader and a follower,” according to sponsorship of bills. Brownback is rated the same.

    The page for each member also reports approval ratings from SurveyUSA and an analysis of missed votes. It also holds a link to the page at the Center for Responsive Politics, which lets you see information about campaign contributions. Information about committee membership and bill sponsorship and cosponsorship round out this page.

    You can also add a member to your tracking page, so you can receive email updates when new information becomes available.

    This website is a useful resource for citizens to keep with with Congress.