Voice For Liberty

Tag: Open records

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer: State of the City 2011

    This week Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer delivered his annual “State of the City” address. While the Wichita Eagle editorial commenting on the mayor’s speech is titled “Cause to boast, hope,” a look at some of the important topics the mayor addressed will lead some to conclude otherwise.

    The text of the mayor’s address may be read at several places, including here.

    Economic development

    Regarding Wichita’s economic development, the mayor said that the city’s efforts saved 745 jobs and created 435 jobs, for a total impact of 1,180 jobs. To place those numbers in context, we note that American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates the labor force in Wichita is 191,760 persons. This means that the economic development efforts of the City of Wichita affected a number of jobs equivalent to 0.6 percent of the city workforce.

    This small number of jobs impacted by the city’s economic development initiatives is dwarfed by other economic events. Additionally, these efforts by the city are counterproductive — if our interest is creating a dynamic economy in Wichita. Analysis by the Kauffman Foundation finds that it is new firms — young firms, in other words — that are the primary drivers of job creation. But the economic development policies of cities like Wichita are definitely biased toward older, established firms. The cost of these economic development efforts, which are paid for by everyone including young businesses firms struggling to grow, means that we prop up unproductive companies at the expense of the type of firms we need to really grow the Wichita economy.

    In particular, the mayor’s proudest achievement — he nearly burst with pride when speaking of it — pours a large amount of state, county, and city funds into Hawker Beechcraft, an old-line company that is shrinking its employment in Kansas. This deal with Hawker Beechcraft should not be viewed as a proud moment for Wichita and Kansas. Instead, we should view this as succumbing to economic blackmail by Hawker, based on a threat that may not have been genuine. We responded by making in investment in an old-line, shrinking company, apparently the first time that the state has invested public funds in a downsizing company.

    Furthermore, the investment in Hawker comes on the heels of an analysis that says Hawker should divest itself of all its lines of business except for one. The analysis paints a grim future for Hawker: “In addition, backlogs are dwindling, R&D budgets are miniscule, employee pensions are underfunded by $296 million and the prospects of paying down its long-term debt are remote. At this point, it would be a monumental task just to roll-over the debt, let alone pay it off entirely. At the root of the problem is the state of Hawker Beechcraft’s business jet product lines. … At the heart of HBC’s current strategy is the assumption that a market recovery will fix what’s ailing the company, and that is just not true. The company’s business aviation products are seriously underperforming with new products relegated to minor upgrades due to a token R&D budgets based on an across-the-board derivative strategy.”

    The mayor also touted an agreement with Bombardier Learjet for the company to produce a new jet in Wichita. This deal required that the state issue bonds to raise money to give to Bombardier. The bonds will be paid off by the company’s employee withholding taxes. That’s money that would normally go to the state’s general fund. Instead, this deal raises the cost of government for everyone else.

    The mayor said of these deals: “As I suggested at the time of the Hawker deal, this was a declaration that Kansas and Wichita will fight to keep its aircraft industry. As I said then, ‘You’re not going to take what’s most important to us, and that’s our aviation industry.’ Simply put, we will not lose these jobs. Period.”

    Unfortunately, the mayor’s declaration is an invitation to Kansas companies of all types to seek public funds just as these two companies did, and as others have across Kansas. The result is increased costs of government and a state and city less inviting to the dynamic and innovative young companies that we now know are the engine of prosperity and job growth.

    The mayor also lauded the use of “revenue bonds” used for the construction of a IMAX movie theater in west Wichita. Focusing on the bonds allowed the mayor to gloss over the large measure of property tax forgiveness — corporate welfare — granted to the Warren Theater. The theater’s owners have received corporate welfare before from the city.

    Plans for downtown

    On the master plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, the mayor said the plan will “lead us to a point where ultimately the private investment exceeds public investment by a 15 to 1 ratio.” At the time agitation for a downtown plan started two years ago, research indicated that the ratio of private to public investment in downtown was approximately one to one. It’s quite a stretch for the mayor to promise an eventual 15 to one ratio, especially since the Goody Clancy plan recently adopted by the city council calls for — over the next 20 years — $500 million in private investment supported by $100 million of public investment. That’s a five to one ratio, not the 15 to one mentioned by the mayor. Even then, it will be surprising if anything near a five to one ratio is achieved.

    The mayor also promoted the decision by Cargill to build a new facility downtown as a sign of success. This facility, however, required over $2.5 million in various subsidy from state and local governments. It hardly seems a measure of proud success when companies are able to extract this level of corporate welfare in exchange for locating facilities in Wichita.

    Accountability and transparency

    In his address, Mayor Brewer promoted the city’s efforts in accountability and transparency, telling the audience: “We must continue to be responsive to you. Building on our belief that government at all levels belongs to the people. We must continue our efforts that expand citizen engagement. … And we must provide transparency in all that we do.”

    This an instance in which the actions of the city do not match with Brewer’s rhetoric. A small example is from last fall when the city had a stakeholder meeting to discuss the city’s community improvement district policy. While the term “stakeholder” is vague and means different things to different people, you might think that such a gathering might include representatives from the community at large. Instead, the meeting was stacked almost exclusively with those who have an interest in extracting as much economic subsidy as possible from the city. Often we find that meetings of this type are designed so that no dissenting voices are present.

    More importantly, the City of Wichita has failed to follow a fundamental law that provides accountability and transparency: the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I have made requests for records from three quasi-governmental agencies, two of which are under the city’s direct influence: Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. Each of these organizations denied that they are public agencies as defined in the KORA, and therefore refused to fulfill my requests.

    Two times last year I appeared before the city council when the city was considering renewal of its contract with Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. I asked the mayor that as a condition of renewing the contracts, the city ask that the agencies follow the law. But the mayor and the city rely on an incorrect interpretation of the KORA from city attorney Gary Rebenstorf and refused to act on my request. It should be noted that Rebenstorf has been wrong several times before when issuing guidance to the 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.

    The Kansas Open Records Act 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.” Governments in Kansas should be looking at ways to increase availability of information. Instead, the City of Wichita uses a narrow — not liberal — interpretation of the records law restrict citizen access to records. At some time I believe the city’s legal position will be shown to be wrong.

    At any time the mayor could ask — and it could have been written into their contracts — that these agencies comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. The mayor’s refusal to do so indicates an attitude of accountability and transparency on the city’s terms, not on citizens’ terms and the law.

    Citizen response

    At many levels of government, when the chief executive makes an annual address like this, time is provided for someone to make a response, usually someone with a different point of view. This is the practice at the federal level, and also in Kansas when the governor delivers the state of the state address.

    The City of Wichita ought to do the same.

  • 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.

  • Wichita open records intent not what it seems

    At Tuesday’s meeting Wichita City Council, the city may take action that appears to advance the goal of making more information about government available to citizens. The proposed action, however, simply acknowledges intent to comply with one provision of the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA). The city still avoids full compliance with this law.

    The issue at hand is renewal of the city’s contract with the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. This agency, while structured as a non-profit corporation, is in effect a branch of Wichita city government. Its sole source of funds is property tax, except for some private fund-raising done last year for a specific purpose.

    It’s important that citizens and journalists have complete access to all records that are considered open under the Kansas Open Records Act. An example of why this is important is the case of Mike Howerter, a trustee of Labette Community College in Parsons.

    As reported in the Kansas Watchdog story Labette Community College President reimbursed with tax dollars for political donation, Howerter noticed that a check number was missing from a register. Upon his inquiry, it was revealed that the missing check was used to reimburse the college president for a contribution to the campaign fund for Kansas Treasurer Dennis McKinney.

    While 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.

    The action the City of Wichita may take on Tuesday proposes that the WDDC make available a report that will not give citizens and journalists the information they need to do what Howerter did at Labette Community College. But the city will undoubtedly use this report to claim that it and the WDDC are in full compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act, thereby deflecting further records requests and scrutiny.

    It’s a smokescreen, in other words.

    Last fall I asked the WDDC and two other agencies with similar finances and relationships to the city for their check registers and employment contract for their chief executive. All three declined to comply with my request. Their reason was not that their check registers are not considered to be records that are open, but that the agencies are not public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. See Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and City of Wichita refuse to follow Kansas Open Records Act for details.

    I have asked the Sedgwick County District Attorney to investigate the refusal of these agencies to comply with what I believe the Kansas Open Records Act says they must do. That office is still working on this case.

    At Tuesday’s city council meeting, I will ask that the city include language in the contract acknowledging that the WDDC is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act.

    —-
    The language in the agenda report for Tuesday’s meeting is: “The WDDC contract amendment also provides the procedure for the WDDC to comply with new Kansas Open Records Act reporting requirements for not-for-profit entities receiving public funds.”

    The language in the proposed ordinance relating to the open records act is as follows: “3. KORA. Annually, on or before June 1, the Corporation will file with the City a written financial report for the preceding calendar year, detailing the receipt of public funds and the expenditure of such funds, in a form and format as the City and Corporation may reasonably agree and in the absence of a specified form, in the same format as the SSMID budget. It is the intention of the parties that this filing shall serve to make such report an open public record and to fill the requirements of K.S.A. 40-240.”

    I believe the statute number referred to in this proposed ordinance is a mistake, as K.S.A. 40-240 concerns insurance law. Instead, K.S.A. 45-240 is titled “Recordkeeping requirements for certain not-for-profit entities” and is, I believe, the correct statutory reference.

  • Wichita won’t release Southwest Airlines report

    Research produced for the City of Wichita by a taxpayer-supported university won’t be made available to the public until a later date.

    The report, produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University, may provide analysis of the feasibility and economic impact of Southwest Airlines entering the Wichita market.

    An informal request made by myself for this document, which the city escalated to a formal request under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), was denied. The reasoning that city legal staff provided is as follows:

    “The request is denied pursuant to KSA 45-221(a)(20). The reports have not been distributed to a majority of the quorum of any body, have not been cited in a public meeting. These memoranda contain research data in the process of analysis and contain recommendations in which opinions are expressed or actions proposed.”

    The portion of the statute referred to, which is one of many exceptions to the Kansas Open Records Act, reads: “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.”

    It is important to recognize that the Kansas Open Records Act does not prohibit the City of Wichita from releasing this document. The law simply does not require the city to release the records.

    But the city can release the document, if it wanted to. It is within the discretion of the city to do so.

    Looking forward, I believe there will be a time when the document will become a public record and the city will have to supply it. I don’t know what the city accomplishes by delaying the release of it until that time. It is true that I am skeptical of the conclusions of the document as reported in the Wichita Eagle, which has obtained a copy of the report through a source other than the city.

    Specifically, I would like to see the reasoning or evidence for the reported claim that the entry of Southwest will result in 7,000 additional jobs — direct and indirect — being added to the Wichita area. As I noted in previous articles, our area’s second-largest employer has just 6,000 employees. These grandiose economic development claims are difficult to believe.

    Other articles on this topic:
    In Wichita, will Southwest save our city?
    Wichita economic development claims deserve scrutiny

  • Wichita’s Intrust Bank Arena shrouded in mystery

    Okay, maybe that’s a little over-hyped, but when arena cheerleader Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle starts to question the operations of Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita, there must be something going on.

    Holman’s column of yesterday complained of lack of transparency in the arena’s operations: “But with hindsight, and with the Intrust Bank Arena open three months and generating revenue, it’s more clear all the time that county leaders gave away too much oversight authority to SMG, leaving citizens in the strange and frustrating position of having too little hard information about how their $206 million investment is doing.”

    The sudden departure of arena manager Chris Presson under circumstances that can only be described as alarming will add to the concern of citizens. Well, not all citizens. Some arena boosters simply don’t care how much of a burden the arena may become to county taxpayers, as long as they have their arena.

    The lack of transparency at the arena and some county commissioner’s lack of concern about this important issue has been the subject of articles on this site. See Wichita downtown arena open records failure, Wichita downtown arena contract seems to require Sedgwick County approval, and Sedgwick County keeps lease agreement secret.

  • Kansas senate debate centers on free speech, transparency

    This afternoon the Kansas Senate debated for about 90 minutes on an amendment that would require more disclosure for “issue ads” or communications in favor of candidates by third parties.

    Senator Terrie Huntington, a Republican from Fairway, introduced the amendment to Senate Substitute for HB 2079. Its language, apparently identical to Senate Bill 418, states: “Any person who spends or contracts to spend an amount of $500 or more per calendar year for any electioneering communication” must file reports that disclose the identity of the donor and the amount of the contribution.

    At one point in the debate, Senator Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, asked Huntington why it is the government’s business who makes a contribution? Huntington replied the she didn’t know why the government has campaign finance laws, except that she has to file reports of her contributors.

    Bruce also objected to what he called “loose language” in the bill. Several times he asked about the use of the word “specifically,” saying that the bill was vague in who would be required to disclose contributions. He suggested that churches might have to disclose their donors if this amendment becomes law.

    Senator Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who is the long-time minority leader of the Senate, said that this amendment applies only to those who contribute over $500 for the purpose of electioneering communication. He added that this type of communication does not include communications made by membership organizations solely to their members. That would not be covered by this amendment, he said.

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, made a case for anonymous free speech based on the Constitution. People should be allowed to state an opinion, she said. She referred to a series of “Snoop dog” ads used in recent elections that were, she said, traced back to abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. Noting that Tiller was murdered last year, she said “somebody got upset, and he was murdered. And that’s why we protect free speech, and that’s why we allow for anonymous free speech.”

    Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler in southwest Kansas, raised the issue of how this amendment would affect unions and their communications. Huntington said that unions are not formed for the express purpose of campaign electioneering.

    Hensley said that unions typically form political action committees, which must disclose their contributors. If they don’t do that, they are treated the same as corporations.

    Huelskamp raised the question what if an organization sends out a communication to their members, but someone else — not a member — inadvertently receives the communication? This is important, as the language of the amendment says that communication solely to members is not covered. Huntington did not seem to have a satisfactory answer to this.

    What about editorials, Huelskamp asked? Huntington said that editorials printed in newspapers not controlled by the candidate are not covered by the proposed amendment. Huntington said that newspaper editorials are not written for the purposes of electioneering, which Huelskamp disputed, noting that editorialists “write all the time trying to influence elections.” He recognized the concern that some have for the wealthy influencing elections, and that some own newspapers and other outlets. Why do they get to editorialize and send out their opinions?

    Huntington noted that newspapers are covered under the freedom of the press guaranteed in the Constitution, and that we all know who owns the newspaper. Huelskamp said that ownership is not necessarily known in all cases. He asked about the distinction between an individual buying an ad in the newspaper versus an editorial writer saying the same thing. Would the ad buyer be subject to disclosure, but not the editorial writer? What is the reason for the distinction, he asked?

    Huntington replied that editorials are not included in the definition of electioneering communications in this amendment. Huelskamp pressed for the reason why this is so. Huntington replied that these do not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate, so they were not included in the definition of electioneering communication.

    Huelskamp noted that express advocacy is the whole purpose of this amendment, so why are these exemptions in the amendment? Huntington was not able to give a specific answer.

    Huelskamp said that this amendment would create a situation where a newspaper editorial writer could write something, and then a private citizen could pay for an ad with the exact same language, and the citizen — not the editorial writer — would be subject to election reporting requirements. Why, he asked, should those who own a newspaper have more free speech than others?

    During the debate there seemed to be confusion on spending $500 or more on a communications piece versus contributing $500 or more to an organization.

    Huelskamp mentioned a case in 1958 Alabama, where that state tried to determine who were members of the NAACP. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to anonymous groups to get together and influence the political process, he said. Legislation like the proposed amendment, he told the Senate, would have prevented the NAACP from reporting on the action of the Alabama legislature.

    In closing, Huelskamp said that even ads that let citizens know what elected officials are doing are affected by laws like these. The purpose of this amendment, he said, is to limit and chill speech of those who might disagree.

    Hensley said this amendment is about the peoples’ right to know. He mentioned the organization Americans for Prosperity, saying he thinks it doesn’t want people to have the right to know about their contributions and expenditures. He said that AFP is, in fact, electioneering.

    Hensley contended again that all the amendment says is that if you contribute more than $500, you’re going to have to disclose. He said we know who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor.

    Hensley mentioned an award he received from Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, and that Huelskamp was also honored as a “friend of the public’s right to know. That’s what this is all about.”

    Joining the debate again, Bruce addressed the issue of whose information will be made public. He said that this amendment would require disclosure of anyone who has contributed $500 or more to an organization.

    Senator Jeff Colyer delivered a short lesson on American history, telling how founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson wrote anonymously — electioneering, Colyer contended.

    In a roll call vote, the amendment failed with 18 votes in favor, and 21 against.

    Analysis

    Hensley’s accusation of Americans for Prosperity reveals the true target of this amendment. It, along with a few other organizations, are being singled out in this proposed law. These organizations are largely conservative, although those on the political left have tried to hide large political contributions, as a Kansas Meadowlark investigation revealed.

    I believe that Hensley confuses government action with private action. Open records, which is an issue Huelskamp has been closely involved with, is concerned with citizens’ right to know what government is doing. This amendment addresses actions that private individuals may take. There’s a huge distinction between the two, and that’s one of the largest issues in this amendment.

    In making his remarks about knowing who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, Hensley may have forgotten about unsigned editorials and features like the anonymous and popular Opinion Line in the Wichita Eagle. Most newspapers also allow comments to be left to articles on their online editions, and these are almost always an anonymous form of communication and commonly used for blatant electioneering.

    A problem with this amendment is that individuals may make contributions to organizations for general use, not earmarking the dollars for any specific use such as a political mailing. How would organizations decide whose contributions to disclose?

    In the end, the best solution is a government so small, so limited and powerless, that it doesn’t much matter who is in charge. Then campaign finance won’t be very important.

    This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for March 16, 2010.

    School consolidation measures deliberated in House

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Kansas House tentatively approved a plan today that would allow three or more school districts to consolidate into two districts. House Bill 2704 originally included two consolidation-promoting components, but one of the components was stripped off on the House floor under the direction of Rep. Bill Light, R-Rolla.”

    Concealed-carry bill stalls in committee

    (Kansas Liberty) “Legislation promoting an alteration to the state’s concealed-carry law has been sitting in the House Federal and State Affairs committee since its February hearing. House Bill 2685 would require any state building that posts a sign prohibiting concealed-carry to have adequate security measures in place.”

    Debate — who decides supremacy of Health Care Freedom Amendment?

    (Kansas Liberty) “Conferees testifying on the Health Care Freedom Amendment butted heads today on whether the measure would provide the state with adequate protection from being forced to comply with any health-care mandates that could be passed by the federal government.”

    Sales tax exemption repeals a possibility for nonprofits, other organizations

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas business owners and non-profit service organizations urged lawmakers Monday to reject proposals that would require groups as diverse as utility customers, Girl Scouts and coin-operated laundry owners to pay more sales taxes.”

    Mega school districts would save millions, panel told

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Consolidating Kansas’ nearly 300 school districts into a fraction of that number, with 10,000 students in each district, would cut potentially hundreds of million of dollars in duplicative administrative costs, backers of such a plan told a Kansas House panel this week.”

    KDOT looks at Amtrak expansion

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – The Kansas House voted 115 to five Thursday to give Kansas Secretary of Transportation Deb Miller the ability to prepare for expanded rail service in the state. That same day, Amtrak released a study concerning the feasibility of such passenger rail service, which was presented to the House Transportation committee.”

    Tobacco tax plan hurts mom-and-pop stores, opponents say

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Tom Palace considered wearing a bulls-eye costume to testify before the Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation committee hearing Wednesday. As executive director of the Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association of Kansas, Palace feels that the legislature’s proposed options for additional revenue target his industry at every turn. Cigarette, liquor, fuel and sales taxes are all options that the legislature is examining to cover an estimated $400 million budget shortfall.”

    Kansas panel changes proposed property tax lid

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas House Taxation committee members voted to send a proposed lid on new property tax increases to the House floor Tuesday after first changing a key condition in the plan.”

    Spokesmen for developmentally disabled ask Supreme Court to halt spending cuts

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – A restraining order against the State of Kansas was requested Friday by advocates for the developmentally disabled, who said recent budget cuts are harmful and in violation of federal laws and the state constitution. ‘Thousands of people are hurting out there,’ said Tom Laing, executive director of Interhab, a group representing community programs for the developmentally disabled. ‘We should not want to live in a state where these things are allowed.’”

    Legislature wades into tax bills this week

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – After weeks of talking about weak revenues and budget cuts, the Legislature this week takes up various tax proposals ranging from elimination of sales tax exemptions to a new levy on soda pop and other sugared drinks.”

    Governor says votes there for major tax increase

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – There are enough votes to pass a $300 million to $400 million tax increase, the governor told KHI News Service. But still uncertain, he said, is the specific mix of taxes legislators will settle on. They currently have before them proposals to increase the general sales tax but also tobacco and alcohol. The Senate also is considering a measure that for the first time tax the sugar in soft drinks and other sugary beverages. The Senate and House this week also are looking at bills that would repeal sales tax exemptions.”

    Sunshine Week 2010: Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Our nation’s founding documents state clearly that the people, endowed with fundamental, inalienable rights, are the masters of government, which derives its just power from the consent of the governed. But, can consent be given without knowledge of what is consented to? Citizens are in an uphill battle against the inertia of decades of apathy. Adding urgency to the battle is the dramatic growth of government influence, power and complexity both nationally and locally.”

    A Look Inside the Kansas State Board of Education

    (Kansas Watchdog) “The March meeting of the Kansas State Board of Education made no headlines in the major media but the future of Kansas’ youth, the financial future of the state and its citizens’ freedoms all depend, in part, on how the Board works and the decisions it makes. A few glimpses into the Board’s operation are telling.”

    My view: Campaign Finance should cover judicial retention elections

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, open government, open records and transparency are issues that everyone can agree on. When Tom Witt from the Kansas Equality Coalition asked me to speak in favor of transparency in judicial retention elections, I knew that was an issue I had no choice but to embrace.”

    Governor Mark Parkinson on the Economy, the Budget and Kansas Health

    (State of the State KS) “Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson (D) addresses budget shortfalls, key Capitol legislative issues and the need for bipartisan work in Kansas and Washington.”

    Budget Director Duane Goossen On This Year’s $106 Million Problem

    (State of the State KS) “Budget Director Duane Goossen talks about new information the state is short $106 million for 2010 and what should be done to fix it.”

    School Consolidation Considered as Solution To Budget Crisis

    (State of the State KS) “The House Education Budget committee heard debate on a bill Thursday that would consolidate the current 293 school districts to about 45 across the state.”

  • Open Records are an issue in Kansas

    Remarks delivered to a meeting of the South-central Kansas legislative delegation, January 5, 2010.

    I’d like to see to Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) strengthened in some way.

    Recently I asked three quasi-governmental organizations in Wichita for some records. They declined, stating that they are not subject to the records act. They believe that because their form of organization is non-profit — several different forms of 501c status — they do not have to follow the KORA.

    These organizations receive all or nearly all of their funds from taxes. The open records act defines a public agency as, in part, “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.”

    These organizations may be relying on faulty advice by the Wichita city attorney, who says that at least one of these organizations falls under the vendor exception to the KORA. That exception is there so that if, say, a car dealer sells a car to a city, the dealer isn’t subject to the KORA for that reason alone.

    But these organizations, generally, have only one client: government. They are performing a governmental function that some cities keep in-house instead of outsourcing as Wichita has. So this vendor exception should not apply in these cases.

    The Kansas Open Records Act contains language stating that the act should be construed liberally. Governments should be looking for ways to make more information available, not going out of the way to restrict access, as does the City of Wichita.

    I don’t know what would be the cure for this situation. I’ve asked the district attorney to look into these cases.

    Furthermore, I would like to call your attention to the Sedgwick County legislative platform, especially the provisions regarding the limitation of the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and the requirement for sales and property tax increases to be put to a vote of the people. As you may be aware, Sedgwick County did not budget funds for a lobbyist this year, so we’re going to be counting on Sedgwick County legislators to press these initiatives.

    Finally, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has compelling research showing that school choice programs save money. At a time we’re struggling to fund schools, we should look at school choice programs as a way to save money.