Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas Open Records Act

  • Sedgwick County misses opportunity to compel transparency

    Sedgwick County Commission December 16, 2009Sedgwick County Commission

    During today’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, commissioners awarded funds to an organization without requiring accountability and transparency.

    At issue was the county awarding $50,000 to Visioneering Wichita. My testimony opposing this funding is at Visioneering Wichita should not receive public funds. In my testimony, I asked that if the commissioners decided to approve the funding, that compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act be a condition of the funding. Specifically, I asked that Visioneering Wichita would agree in writing that it is a public agency as defined in the KORA.

    Commissioner Karl Peterjohn made an amendment to the funding motion that did what I recommended. It died for lack of a second.

    To my knowledge, no one has made a records request to Visioneering Wichita. I don’t know if anyone has plans to, and I don’t know what Visioneering Wichita’s response would be to a request. But several quasi-governmental organizations in Wichita — including one in a similar situation to Visioneering Wichita as far as parentage — have refused to comply with my records requests on the basis that they are not “public agencies” as defined in the KORA. This is despite the law’s clear language, and despite the fact that these organizations are wholly or nearly wholly funded by tax revenues.

    In his presentation, Visioneering Wichita volunteer chairman Jon Rolph said his organization has been “very open and transparent.” But in questioning by Peterjohn, Rolph did not know the total budget of Visioneering, nor was he sure of its exact form of business organization, despite my same question having been submitted to Rolph several days ago.

    When asked by Peterjohn if he considered Visioneering Wichita to be covered under the Kansas Open Records Act, Rolph said that Visioneering would probably fall under the category of public-private partnerships like the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition (GWEDC). (GWEDC recently refused to comply with a records request filed by me, although it is largely or entirely funded by taxes.) “But we want to be open, we have nothing to hide,” he said. But he said he’d have to check to see if the organization felt it was subject to the KORA.

  • Visioneering Wichita should not receive public funds

    Remarks to be delivered to the December 16, 2009 meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,

    I’m here today to recommend that this body not give taxpayer funds to Visioneering Wichita.

    My reason is simple: Many of the items that Visioneering is in favor of require government spending. Mr. Rolph told me that Visioneering doesn’t advocate for higher taxes. But any government spending — at least by governmental bodies other than the federal government — requires taxation or borrowing, which is simply deferred taxation.

    For example, the items on Visioneering’s unified legislative agenda all involve funding from the state. Mr. Rolph told me, correctly, that we’re in a battle with other parts of the state to see who gets funding, and that we need to make sure we in south central Kansas get our fair share. There’s some truth in that. But the better battle we need to fight is to control state spending in all areas, so that there’s not this regional battle every year.

    If the county is inclined to spend money on legislative matters, I might suggest that restoring funding for a contract lobbyist — that was about $29,000 if memory serves — plus some expense money for commissioners to spend some time at the statehouse might be a better expenditure. This is especially true this year as this commission has proposed some legislative initiatives that deserve advocacy in Topeka.

    In another area, Visioneering supports the planning effort for the revitalization of downtown Wichita. Besides being an expenditure of taxpayer money to pay for the plan, it’s certain that the ambitious plans for downtown will require a massive infusion of taxpayer funds. The sales tax used in Oklahoma City, for example, has been cited as something that should be “of interest” to Wichita.

    Funding Visionering with taxpayer funds, therefore, amounts to taxpayer-funded lobbying for more government spending funded by taxation. This leads to a loss of economic freedom for the people of Wichita and Kansas. I am reminded of the words of Milton Friedman, who wrote in his book Capitalism and Freedom: “Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself … Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.”

    So no, we don’t need to do anything that encourages more government spending and taxation.

    If this commission should decide to fund Visioneering, I make this suggestion: As a condition of funding, the county should require that Visioneering agree, in writing, that it and its parent or affiliated organizations meet the definition of a “public agency” as defined in KSA 45-217 (f)(1), and are therefore subject to the provisions of the Kansas Open Records Act and the Kansas Open Meeting Act.

    By doing this, citizens may request documents without having to confront disagreements over the definition of a public agency.

  • Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau should follow Kansas Open Records Act

    Remarks to be delivered to the December 1, 2009 meeting of the Wichita City Council.

    Mr. Mayor, members of the council,

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

    Recently I made a request under the provisions of the records act for records from the Bureau. This request was denied. The Bureau didn’t deny my request because of the nature of the records I asked for. Instead, the Bureau’s Chairman, Devin Hansen, has an understanding, he wrote, that the Bureau is not subject to the open records law.

    Here’s why the Convention and Visitors Bureau is a public agency subject to the 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.”

    Let’s ask a few questions:

    Is the Convention and Visitors Bureau supported in whole or in part by tax funds? According to its 2008 annual report, 89% of its revenues came from the transient guest tax. We must answer “yes” to this question.

    Is the Convention and Visitors Bureau an office or agency connected with state or local government? Absolutely, in terms of both funding and function.

    There’s no rational or reasonable basis for the Bureau’s assertion that it is not a public agency subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.

    There are two other quasi-governmental organizations similarly situated, the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. These two organizations have also refused to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act for the same reason as the Convention and Visitors Bureau. The WDDC, in particular, is relying on what I believe to be an incorrect interpretation of the law by city legal staff.

    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 reasons to avoid complying with the law, as has the City of Wichita and these three quasi-governmental organizations. Especially when the reasons the city legal staff has used are wrong, both in terms of the letter of the law and its intent.

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

  • City of Wichita and the Kansas Open Records Act

    At a meeting of the Wichita City Council, it becomes clear that either the city doesn’t understand the meaning of the Kansas Open Records Act, or it has no intention of following it.

  • Wichita’s open records policy is contrary to the interests of citizens

    Remarks to be delivered to the November 3, 2009 meeting of the Wichita city council.

    The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), in KSA 45-216 (a) states: “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.”

    But in my recent experience, our city’s legal staff has decided to act contrary to this policy. It’s not only the spirit of this law that the city is violating, but also the letter of the law as well.

    Recently I requested some records from the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. Although the WDDC cooperated and gave me the records I requested, the city denies that the WDDC is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act.

    This is an important issue to resolve.

    In the future, requests may be made for records for which the WDDC may not be willing to cooperate. In this case, citizens will have to rely on compliance with the law, not voluntary cooperation. Or, other people may make records requests and may not be as willing as I have been to pursue the matter. Additionally, citizens may want to attend WDDC’s meetings under the provisions of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

    Furthermore, there are other organizations similarly situated. These include the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition and the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. These organizations should properly be ruled public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act so that citizens and journalists may freely request their records and attend their meetings.

    Here’s why the WDDC is a public agency subject to the 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.”

    The WDDC is wholly supported by a special property tax district. Plain and simple. That is the entire source of their funding, except for some private fundraising done this year.

    The city cites an exception under which organizations are not subject to the Kansas Open Records Act: “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.”

    The purpose of this exception is so that every vendor that sells goods and services to government agencies is not subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. For example, if a city buys an automobile, the dealer is not subject simply because it sold a car to the city.

    But this statute contains an important qualifier: the word “solely.” In this case, the relationship between the City of Wichita and the WDDC is not that of solely customer and vendor. Instead, the city created a special tax district that is the source of substantially all WDDC’s revenue, and the existence of the district must be renewed by the city soon. The WDDC performs a governmental function that some cities decide to keep in-house. The WDDC has only one “customer,” to my knowledge, that being the City of Wichita.

    Furthermore, the revenue that the WDDC receives each year is dependent on the property tax collected in the special taxing district.

    The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that in terms of both funding and function, the WDDC is effectively a branch of Wichita city government.

    The refusal of the city’s legal department to acknowledge these facts and concede that the WDDC is a public agency stands reason on its head. It’s also contrary to the expressly stated public policy of the state of Kansas. It’s an intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to exist.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, it doesn’t take a liberal application of the Kansas Open Records Act to correct this situation. All that is required is to read the law and follow it. That’s what I’m asking this body to do: ask the city legal department to comply with the clear language and intent of the Kansas Open Records Act.

  • Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and City of Wichita refuse to follow Kansas Open Records Act

    On October 15 I made a request under the Kansas Open Records Act, asking for agendas and minutes of the board meetings of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation for 2009. The City of Wichita, and later the WDDC, denied this request.

    In its denial, the city stated: “The WDDC is a non-profit organization. Such entities do not become subject to the KORA merely by the receipt of some of their funding from the City, which is used to pay for services from the WDDC.”

    It’s true that the WDDC is organized as a 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt corporation. But this is not relevant to whether the WDDC is considered a public agency as defined by the KORA.

    The statute that makes the WDDC subject to the KORA is KSA 45-217 (f)(1), which 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 WDDC is wholly supported by a special property tax district. Its only other income listed on its IRS form 990 for 2008 is a small amount of interest income, presumably from investment of unspent funds. (2008 WDDC revenue was $610,214 from the tax district, and $21,953 from investment income on a balance of $530,235 [end of 2008] in savings and temporary cash investments.)

    In denying the request, the city cited two statutes:

    KSA 45-217 (f)(2)(A), which gives criteria under which bodies might not be considered a public agency, states: “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.” The purpose of this exception is so that every vendor that sells goods and services to government agencies is not subject to the KORA for that reason alone. For example, if a city buys office supplies, that vendor is not subject to KORA simply for that reason alone.

    But this statute contains an important qualifier: the word “solely.” In this case, the relationship between the City of Wichita and the WDDC is not merely customer and vendor. Instead, the city created a special tax district that is the source of substantially all of WDDC’s revenue. The existence of the district must be renewed by the city soon. The WDDC performs a governmental function (the promotion of the city’s downtown) that some cities decide to keep in-house. The WDDC has only one “customer,” to my knowledge, that being the City of Wichita.

    It’s clear that this exception does not apply to the WDDC.

    The city also cited KSA 45-221 (a)(20) which defines a category of records that a public agency shall not be required to disclose as follows: “Notes, preliminary drafts, research data in the process of analysis, unfunded grant proposals, memoranda, recommendations or other records in which opinions are expressed or policies or actions are proposed, except that this exemption shall not apply when such records are publicly cited or identified in an open meeting or in an agenda of an open meeting.” I’m not sure why the city cited 45-221(a)(20). It doesn’t seem pertinent.

    A few years ago the Topeka Capital-Journal asked for records from Schools for Fair Funding, a non-profit organization established by some Kansas public school districts, and funded by those school district’s tax revenues. SFF claimed that it was exempt from the KORA. In a settlement before trial, SFF agreed to comply with the KORA and to provide the records the Capital-Journal requested. Furthermore, SFF agreed to contribute $12,500 to the Sunshine Coalition for Open Government. (“Paper, group settle lawsuit” Topeka Capital-Journal, March 6, 2007)

    While this settlement is not binding precedent, SFF realized that it was, in fact, a public agency according to the KORA, and it decided to comply with the law.

    The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation would be wise to come to the same realization.

    Larry Weber, Chairman of the WDDC, in what he termed an effort to foster cooperation, stated to me that if I would name a specific issue or item that I want information on, he would be “better able to address my request.”

    But that’s not the way the law works. The citizens of Wichita are entitled to all the records of the WDDC that fall within the scope of the KORA.

    The refusal by the WDDC and the City of Wichita to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act leads me to ask these questions:

    What is the true reason for the refusal of the WDDC and the City of Wichita to turn over the requested records?

    Does the WDDC or the City of Wichita have something to hide from citizens?

    If the WDDC will not follow the Kansas Open Records Act, should we trust this organization with the planning for the revitalization of downtown Wichita?

    What is the position of the mayor and each city council member on this issue? What is the position of each board member of the WDDC? Are they supportive of the WDDC and the City’s refusal to obey the law?

  • Wichita school district communications priorities

    At a school board meeting in August, USD 259, the Wichita public school district, gave itself a big pat on the back for an award it received for its efforts in educating the public about the school bond issue last year.

    I thought it quite ironic that the district received such an award, much less that the district would spend any time or effort applying for it. That’s because the communications practice of the Wichita school district, at least from the experience of citizens who want to investigate district claims, is dreadful. In particular, the practices of the district regarding its website and the material the district chooses to deliver through it need examination.

    Citizens might have became aware of the district’s attitudes toward communications when board member Lynn Rogers, in a public meeting, told me that records requests are a burden to the district.

    Then there was interim superintendent Martin Libhart’s insistence that the district does know how many classrooms it has. But that information was never provided.

    During the bond campaign the district made various claims about the need for the bond issue. But when citizens asked for the underlying evidence, it took a long time for the district’s communications office to provide it. Rogers at one time advised using Google to find the basis for the district’s claims. This doesn’t seem characteristic of a school district that received a communications award.

    Furthermore, the Wichita school district doesn’t even get little things right. In the online agendas for school board meetings, links to supplemental document files are provided. These documents usually hold detailed information about an agenda item.

    These documents, however, are quickly removed, usually the day after the board meeting. Yet information that most citizens would deem non-essential is hosted for long periods on USD 259’s site.

    As an example, currently the USD 259 website holds a video of the groundbreaking of a construction project. This video file is 2,575 KB in size. The event took place on June 16, but I don’t know when the video was placed on the USD 259 website. But it’s there today.

    Compare the treatment of that video document to something that’s important: The treasury warrants (that’s a fancy term for the checks the district writes) for August 2009 is a 23 page pdf document that is 51 Kb in size. This is an example of the type of document that’s quickly removed after each board meeting.

    The video is 50 times the size of the warrants document.

    Board member Rogers told the Flint Hills Center that the reason for removing documents like the warrants is lack of space on the district’s servers.

    This gives an indication as to the priorities of the Wichita school district’s communications: a trivial video is retained, but there’s not room for truly informational documents that are a small fraction in size.

  • Downtown Wichita proposals not available to citizens

    As part of Wichita’s downtown revitalization effort, city leaders decided to hire a planning firm. Four firms have been selected as finalists, and a committee is in the process of evaluating their proposals.

    Whether or not you think this planning process is wise — and I happen to think it is not — it seems to be the will of the city and the special interest groups that will benefit from this type of central planning. So, it seems, we might as well make the best of it. This would include selecting a planning firm that seems most likely to respect property rights, specifically: (a) rejecting the use of eminent domain to seize property, (b) respecting existing zoning and land use rights, and (c) rejecting the use of TIF districts and other forms of public subsidy. These are the things that I learned are important from my trip to Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle, if a city wants to plan in a freedom-friendly way.

    On September 22 and 23, the planning firms will be making presentations to the public. I thought it would be great for citizens to be able to read the proposals so that they would be able to ask intelligent questions at these presentations. Unfortunately, the city won’t let citizens read these proposals, and citizens will not be permitted to ask questions at the presentations.

    The City of Wichita, according to Scott Knebel (Principal Planner, Advanced Plans Division, Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department), doesn’t consider the proposals to be open records under the Kansas Open Records Act. He wrote that in response to my informal request to view the proposal documents. I’ve now made a formal request to the city, and if the city denies access to the records, it will have to cite the provision in the Kansas Open Records Act on which it is relying.

    Earlier I said that citizens can’t read these proposals, but that’s not entirely true. If you’re a member of a select committee, you can have them. Government shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which select citizens are allowed to see how their tax dollars are to be used, and all citizens have a right to know if government intends to take their property.

    The fact that the city doesn’t want to let citizens — except those in a limited circle of downtown boosters — view these proposals and participate in the planning firm selection process is disturbing. It follows a pattern of stacking committees with people friendly to the desired goal, with no desire for dissent to be heard.

  • Kansas open records examined

    Here’s another outstanding investigative report by Paul Soutar of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. I have experienced some of the same obstacles that Soutar has encountered. Last year Wichita school district board member Lynn Rogers told me that record requests are a burden. Interim superintendent Martin Libhart’s attitude was similarly hostile towards legitimate citizen requests for records. Indications are that new board president Barb Fuller and new superintendent John Allison have a better attitude towards records requests, and I hope that time proves this to be the case.

    The spirit is willing but the law is weak

    Paul Soutar, Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

    Government transparency in Kansas is determined largely by open records and open meetings laws which state lofty goals but offer many loopholes and exemptions and few penalties for violations of the laws.

    The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) starts off well. “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.”

    Similarly the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) begins, “In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that meetings for the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business be open to the public.”

    The legislation that follows these broad and lofty goals, however, is full of exemptions and loopholes that circumvent the stated intent. Ignorance of the law and poor compliance by various government bodies also limit its effectiveness according to government transparency advocates.

    A 2008 Better Government Association (BGA) report ranked Kansas’ open records law 18th in the nation. A 2007 study by BGA and the National Freedom of Information Coalition gave Kansas an F and ranked the state 25th out of 50. A 2002 study by BGA and Investigative Reporters and Editors gave Kansas a D.

    Citizens who believe KORA or KOMA law has been violated can file a complaint with the local county attorney, district court or the state’s attorney general. Michael Smith, a Kansas assistant attorney general responsible for issues relating to KORA and KOMA, says complaints about KORA and KOMA compliance are handled locally out of practicality. He says with more than 4,000 government units in Kansas his office would be stretched way too thin.

    Smith stressed the importance of government transparency and awareness of the law during KORA/KOMA training held in Dodge, Olathe, Topeka and Wichita in June. A total of 332 people attended the training. According to registration data received from Smith’s office, 255 were affiliated with government, 46 were with the media and only 14 said they were unaffiliated citizens; another 17 did not list any affiliation.

    From January 2007 to June 2008 there were 62 complaints filed at the county level according to reports submitted to the state attorney general’s office. The attorney general’s office received 78 complaints during that time, including some referred from the county.

    In most cases no violation was found. Some violations were resolved by delivery of the requested material. In a few cases the offending government employee or elected official was required to attend KORA or KOMA training. None of the violations covered by documents obtained from the attorney general’s office resulted in the $500 fine that is permitted by state law.

    There are some common issues leading to problems with KORA. Chief among them is ignorance of the law.

    The law allows an agency to require a written request but not on a specific form and only as a way to ensure good communication. The requester can only be required to provide their name and a description of the information being requested and provide proof of identification. It is not permitted to ask for the person’s employer or a reason for the request. Governments can require written certification that the requester will not use names and addresses obtained to solicit sales or services but only when someone is requesting names or addresses.

    Many times government employees or elected officials are unfamiliar with the law and their first reaction is to look for reasons to deny access or information. It can be complicated because there are 48 exemptions to KORA in the statute and more than 300 elsewhere in other Kansas laws according to Smith. Most exemptions deal with personal privacy issues and release of some personal information can result in a lawsuit against the government.

    During KORA/KOMA training Smith said record custodians must be familiar with records and know which portions of a record cannot be released. “If you’re a record custodian you better know if any of those records are closed.”

    Another common complaint is excessive charges for providing information. KORA allows agencies to charge requesters only for the actual cost of making copies, including staff time to gather, redact and copy the records.

    Smith says the only place the law addresses fee disputes is with state agencies. In those cases the department of administration has final and binding say. There’s nothing like that for local government, so disputes over fees at the local level must go to the local county or district attorney.

    Taxpayer Frustrations

    Paul Driver, CEO of ATG Sports in Andover, filed an open records request with the Wichita School District seeking information regarding an April 2009 synthetic turf contract awarded to a Texas company for $371,000 more than ATG’s bid. According to Driver the district said it would cost him $800 to fulfill his request. Driver offered to bring his own copier to cut costs. “At that point, the school district said we would need to bring our own power source to make the copies.” Eventually a deal was reached for Kansas Blue Print to make the copies for $350.

    The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy requested a copy of a budget report presented to the Wichita Board of Education for their fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Flint Hills was informed that there would be a $50 charge for 2.5 hours of staff time to make an electronic copy of the report and that the money would have to be paid before work commenced.

    Upon delivery of the check, the report was burned to a CD in less than 15 minutes. Allowing $5 for the cost of the CD the employee’s time was effectively charged at $180 per hour. When asked to explain what work was actually done to warrant the charges the employee said he would not answer without a written request for review, which Flint Hills has filed.

    Material provided to Wichita Board of Education members at their public meetings is available on the district’s web site a few days preceding the meeting and is taken down the day of the meeting. Former board president Lynn Rogers said the short availability may be because of space considerations on district Internet servers. The district web site does contain marketing newsletters from 2006.

    When asked about the incidents involving Flint Hills and ATG Sports, Wichita School Superintendent John Allison said after less than one month in the job he was unfamiliar with the specific incidents or the district’s policy and how procedure is determined. “My intent would be to meet the requirements of the open records law and do that on a timely and equitable manner for everybody that requests.”

    Kansas State Board of Education member Walt Chappell used KORA to try to extract information from the Kansas State Department of Education about claimed achievement test improvement as a justification for more taxpayer money. Chappell also asked for information to explain a large discrepancy between state and national student achievement test scores.

    Chappell made the request to Kansas Commissioner of Education Dr. Alexa Posny in a letter dated June 9. He asked for, “any KSDE research report or independent contractor research report provided to the KSDE which supports your claims.”

    Chappell says responses to his request from KSDE and its lawyers did not provide what he was looking for and believes their response may indicate that no such report exists. KORA does stipulate that only existing documents are covered and agencies are not required to generate reports, explain or answer questions.

    It’s also noteworthy that an elected member of the state’s school board had to resort to an open records request to get answers from KSDE, part of the education system he was elected to help oversee.

    Sedgwick County Commissioner Gwen Welshimer says government should be open and everything possible made accessible at little cost to the public. But she’s concerned that the law doesn’t apply equally to all levels of government. “I think local government elected officers and appointees are treated in a different manner from some state officials.”

    Of particular concern is recent legislation prohibiting serial meetings. A serial meeting covers “… a series of interactive communications of less than a majority of a governing body that collectively involve a majority of the body and share a common topic concerning affairs of the body and are intended to reach an agreement.” Meetings in person, over the Internet, phone or via e-mail are included.

    Welshimer said some open meetings requirements, such as a prohibition on serial meetings, have a disproportionate effect on local government and has the opposite effect of what the law was intended to do. “Tight regulations on county commissioners make it extremely difficult to carry out policy and reach decisions.” She says most of that work is done behind closed doors by county managers who work up an issue and create the agenda before giving commission members a short briefing preceding the vote.

    “We can’t talk to each other so we can’t discuss anything. So I don’t know what the reasoning is for my colleague to vote one way or another,” Welshimer said in a recent phone interview. “Sometimes that’s a totally new subject and we haven’t been able to talk to each other to see what each other knows about it.”

    When asked about opportunities to ask questions in open meetings Welshimer said commissioners, like most elected officials, are reluctant to appear uninformed in public.

    State legislators can order research from the Legislative Research Department. That research is not open to the public unless released by the legislator.

    Welshimer, a former state representative, wants to know why state legislators aren’t held to the same standards as local elected officials. “The legislature has serial meetings constantly. They go along and count votes.” She says this allows legislators to research a topic, write a proposal, gather sufficient support for passage and spring it on the legislature. She says city and county managers have similar opportunities. “Every group in town can talk with the county or city manager about some item and then the manager can spring it on the commission. So where in this process do we have openness?”

    Welshimer says anything the legislature does should apply to them and believes the state’s open meeting law should be rewritten.