Voice For Liberty

Tag: Open records

  • 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.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for November 16, 2009.

    2010 Commission advocates tax hikes and wants more K-12 funding

    (Kansas Liberty) “The 2010 Commission, which monitors school finance, is recommending that Gov. Mark Parkinson and the Kansas Legislature raise taxes to maintain funding for K-12 education. The commission is not only asking that K-12 receives no cuts for fiscal year 2010, but that schools also receive an increase in funding for fiscal year 2011. School districts have threatened legislators that they will pursue a lawsuit if they do not receive the level of funding they have requested.”

    Higher-than-expected demand for ‘at risk’ funding to result in millions more for education

    (Kansas Liberty) Are these numbers real? “A November 2006 audit conducted by the Legislative Division of the Post Audit delved into the topic of whether or not the number of students identified as receiving free lunches, actually qualified for the benefit. The audit found that out of a sample of 500 students who received free lunches, 85 actually did not qualify for the benefits.”

    Letter from the Newsroom — Cap & Trade Edition

    (State of the State Kansas) “This week we focus on the impact of federal cap and trade legislation on Kansas. As an agricultural state, Kansas seems caught in the cross hairs of farming and climate regulation.

    At its most simple, Cap and Trade is a system designed to limit pollution by assigning emissions credits. If you emit more than your share, you can buy more credits on an market, similar to the New York Stock Exchange. The Environmental Protection Agency has a great Cap and Trade 101 program on their website to learn more.

    Things get complicated when it becomes clear that some industries are harder hit by this regulation and agriculture it at the top of the list.”

    No Decision by Schools for Fair Funding on Lawsuit

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Schools for Fair Funding (SFFF) met in Newton today, including a one-hour executive session, to consider a possible lawsuit against the state. The only motion offered after the executive session was to approve next month’s meeting in Salina.”

    Kansas Made $254.3 Million in Confidential Payments in 2009

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Access to data is only part of the battle to maintain citizen oversight of government spending. Kansas agencies and departments classified $254.3 million in 2009 vendor payments as ‘confidential by law or legal authority.’”

    Carryover Cash and Consolidation Hot Topics Before Kansas Board of Education

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Kansas Department of Education officials told the state board of education they’re expecting more funding cuts and discussed ways to help stretch this year’s budget, including school consolidations and spending unencumbered cash left over from last year’s operating funds. District unencumbered cash balances were a recurring topic and one board member commented, ‘Please, lets stop talking about $1.3 billion in unencumbered funds.’ Actually, that was last year’s number.

    This year total unencumbered funds grew to almost $1.5 billion. The portion in operating funds totaled $699 million and Deputy Commissioner of Education Dale Dennis told board members districts can access most of that amount. Districts can spend the operating funds carried over from last year by spending them down and not replenishing the funding category from the district’s general fund. ‘If you wanted to run balances down in funds just don’t transfer money over there.’”

    Anderson Still in Republican KS-04 Campaign, Though ‘Anything’s Possible’

    (Forward Kansas) “On Tuesday, Forward Kansas broke the story that Jim Anderson was looking at a potential third party run for the KS-04 seat, and, yesterday, we had the chance to catch up with the Anderson campaign in KS-04. We asked Shanen Taylor, media coordinator for the Anderson campaign, whether Anderson was eyeballing a run as a third party conservative candidate in the Congressional race. Taylor admitted that ‘anything’s possible’ and running as a third party candidate was a consideration in the wake of the coup pulled off by Doug Hoffman against the Republican Party establishment in the NY-23 special election last week.”

    Joan Finney’s People Power

    (Kansas Free Press) “Knowing that she wouldn’t possibly remember meeting me, I acted like I had never met her before and let the host introduce me to Kansas 42nd Governor. ‘Governor, nice to meet you,’ I said. I then walked into the kitchen, and let others visit with the Governor in the living room. I was content that I got to meet Finney again, and went to the kitchen to talk to friends while others bothered the Governor about this or that.”

  • 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.

  • Kansas News Digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for November 2, 2009.

    Kansas House leaders question secretary of commerce’s departure to Missouri

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Republican leadership of the Kansas House is questioning the timing of former Kansas Secretary of Commerce David Kerr’s resignation to take a job as the director of the Department of Economic Development in Missouri. The Show-Me State is Kansas’ rival for a $414 million economic development project expected to create 4,500 jobs.”

    State lawmakers push to preserve Kansans’ right to decide on health care

    (Kansas Liberty) “Kansas House and Senate Republicans are joining together to promote an amendment that they say protects Kansans from any government-managed health-care reform that might come out of the U.S. Congress.” More coverage from Kansas Watchdog is at Legislators Propose Health Care Amendment to Kansas Constitution . A contrary view from Forward Kansas is at KS Republican Legislators Waste More Time Scaring the Public on HCR.

    Despite AG’s findings, Howe pledges to keep doors closed to some public meetings

    (Kansas Liberty) More problems with open records and open meetings in Kansas. “Attorney General Steve Six, responding to an inquiry from state lawmakers about the scope of the Kansas Open Meeting Act, determined that taxes and budget issues cannot be discussed during meetings that are closed to the public, except in cases in which it is “burdensome and impractical, if not impossible” to do so.” Kansas Watchdog coverage is at Letter to JoCo DA from Kansas Press .

    Kansas store moves 100 feet to Missouri to avoid taxes, regulations

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Normally the opening of a new QuikTrip store is not a news item. But, tomorrow the QuikTrip Convenience Store at 27 Southwest Blvd will reopen in Kansas City, Missouri after ‘moving’ about 100 feet from Kansas to avoid higher taxes and more burdensome regulations in Kansas.”

    Small Businesses Struggle with Health Insurance

    (State of the State Kansas) “The Wichita Independent Business Association helps small businesses obtain health insurance but it may not be enough.”

    Is Populism the Way Out of Desert for Kansas Democrats?

    (Kansas Free Press) “It is a sad state of affairs when only multi-millionaires can speak their minds AND succeed in politics. Now both parties feel the need to ‘suck up’ to The Man — corporate plutocracy. But before the Democratic party goes too far down that road, shouldn’t we try the ‘Great Commoner’s’ prescription first?”

  • 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?

  • Press availability: WDDC refuses to follow Kansas Open Records Law

    Recently Bob Weeks submitted records requests to the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. While organized as a non-profit corporation, the WDDC, because it receives its funding from property taxes, is subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.

    But the WDDC and the City of Wichita have refused to recognize the fact that the WDDC is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act, and therefore must follow that law.

    Weeks will be at a press availability event tomorrow to provide more information and answer questions about his requests. The event will be at 2:00 Tuesday October 27, in front of the offices of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation at 507 E. Douglas in Wichita.

    For more information, call Bob Weeks day or evening at 316-708-1837.