Voice For Liberty

Tag: Rhonda Holman

  • Wichita Eagle’s school cheerleading isn’t helpful

    Now that Mark McCormick is no longer with the Wichita Eagle, I think we can say that Rhonda Holman has taken over the role of chief cheerleader for USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

    Not that she needed much of a push in that direction. But claims made in a recent opinion piece of hers (Hard times forcing hard choices) deserve some examination.

    After praising President Obama’s stimulus spending — claiming that it will keep things from becoming worse — she writes this: “And thank goodness that school district voters had the foresight in November to approve a well-timed local economic stimulus plan — the $370 million bond issue for athletics and fine arts facilities, technical education and new schools.”

    There’s so many untruths in this statement that it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s try.

    First, did the school district know that we’d be in a recession this year? If so, they foresaw something that no one else did.

    Second, does government spending stimulate anything except the school system? It’s true that there will be spending going on that probably wouldn’t have happened had the bond issue not passed. But right now Wichitans pay millions of dollars each year to retire the bonds from a past school bond, and soon we’ll have to start paying for this bond. These payments are a drag on the local economy. See Wichita school bond issue economic fallacy and Wichita school district economic impact for more.

    The future tax burden is worse than the Wichita school district would admit to, and Holman doesn’t either. That’s because besides the capital expense of building new schools and more classrooms, there’s the ongoing cost of running the new classrooms. The bond issue doesn’t pay those expenses. Wichitans can expect the school district to propose tax increases as these new classrooms and schools come online.

    Third, if we were getting something truly worthwhile from this extra spending, that might be one thing. But the Wichita school district’s goal — smaller class sizes — is not a goal worth pursuing. Well, it is if you’re part of the public school bureaucracy or the teachers union. But the narrow self-interest of these groups shouldn’t count in this debate.

    If you’re interested in improving the prospects of Wichita’s schoolchildren, this extra spending is a distraction.

    I wonder if Holman has read research like this: “Surprisingly, the data show that academic achievement cannot be accounted for by any of the measures of public investment used in this study (pupil-teacher ratio, per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries, and funds received from the federal government), either singly or as a blend.” It’s in the post Wichita-area school superintendents make flawed case.

    Here’s some reporting by Malcolm Gladwell on what education researches are starting to realize about the effectiveness of class size, one of the goals of the bond issue:

    What’s more — and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world — the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast. … Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You’d have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you’d get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers.

    That’s reported in my post Wichita public school district’s path: not fruitful. In that post, you can also read that the current ways that teachers can advance their careers and salaries (longevity and obtaining extra education) aren’t relevant to their teaching effectiveness:

    The problem is that the current standards for teachers don’t “track what we care about.” The path to increased pay as a teacher — longevity and more education credentials — doesn’t produce better teachers. But because of union contracts that govern pay, that’s the only way to earn more as a teacher. This is one of the reasons why teachers unions are harmful to schools.

    Yet according to the contract with the teachers union in Wichita, longevity and more education credentials are the ways to earn a higher salary.

    Innovations such as differential teacher pay and charter schools are being promoted by President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan as a way to improve our nation’s schools. But in Wichita, the existing public education bureaucracy and teachers unions are firmly opposed to these reforms. It’s too bad we don’t have opinion writers at the Wichita Eagle who are willing to look past these entrenched interests and consider what’s best for Wichita schoolchildren.

  • Sedgwick County solid waste fee criticized

    Today’s Wichita Eagle column by Rhonda Holman is a two-fer. Two issues for the price of one column, and two issues she’s wrong on. The first issue is explained in Wichita water economics.

    She criticizes Commissioner Karl Peterjohn and Board Chairman Kelly Parks for the opposition of a solid waste management fee that would add a relatively small amount to property tax bills.

    (When writing about Peterjohn, do I need to disclose that he and I are friends, and that I helped manage his campaign last year? I’d feel more compelled to do so if Holman would start writing editorials using her entire name.)

    Holman pokes fun at Peterjohn and Parks for “operating on anti-tax autopilot” and at Peterjohn specifically for fulfilling a campaign pledge.

    Anti-tax ought to be the first instinct of politicians. To me, that’s axiomatic and not a basis for criticism. There are always plenty of people in government like Commissioner Dave Unruh who are nuanced enough to recognize — as Holman reports — “with an admirable lack of exasperation: ‘It’s 69 cents.’”

    The problem is that little amounts here and there add up to real money. I think that’s something like the argument Wichita City Council members used in rejecting a $2.00 per month increase in water and sewer bills. Holman supported that action.

    Then, keeping a campaign pledge — what a novel concept! How refreshing!

    We should also look at the public policy aspects of this waste management fee. One of the things it was used for is to fund a Christmas tree recycling program. Here’s a few questions: Is it wise economics to fund recycling projects? Specifically, if natural Christmas trees as such an environmental nuisance that they must be recycled, shouldn’t people who buy them pay for their recycling? Perhaps through a tax — wait, let’s call it a “surcharge” or a “pre-paid environmental mitigation fee” — levied at the corner tree lot?

    Here are comments left to this post that were lost and then reconstructed:

    Wichitatator: What is Rhonda Holman’s legal name? Why doesn’t she use it when she signs her editorials? The Eagle should not have mystery editorial writers without fully disclosing this salient fact.

    Ms. “Holman” could be married to an attorney who is suing the state over school finance or some other public issue. Ms. “Holman” is a public person who wants to enjoy the perks of her editorial position in influencing public policy in this community without assuming the responsibility of publicly disclosing her name.

    For an editorial board that regularly fulminates about “full disclosure” this is an odd position to take. The Eagle regularly criticizes folks who do not fully disclose a lot more than their names in their paper.

    LonnythePlumber: What is her entire name? You imply mystery and wrong motivation if revealed.

  • Wichita water economics

    This week the Wichita City Council declined to raise the fixed portion of customers water bills by $2.00 per month. Today, Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman praises the council for avoiding an illogical water-rate increase. Is she and the city council right on this matter?

    The problem Wichita faces lies in the cost structure of water treatment and delivery. One source estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of a city’s water supply system were fixed, or quasi-fixed, costs.

    These fixed costs don’t vary with the amount of water demanded by customers, at least not in the short run. But the city charges for water based primarily on the amount that customers use. So when demand is low, revenue drops rapidly, but the water department’s costs decrease very little. That’s the source of the problem.

    There is a fixed component to customer’s water bills. One solution would be to increase that fixed charge and drop the cost of a gallon of water. That would make the water department’s revenue less variable. This pricing formula would more accurately reflect the department’s cost structure.

    In retrospect, it appears that the city’s campaign to get people to conserve water has been, to put it kindly, a waste of resources. We’ve conserved — although nature has been the primary force behind this — but we still have to pay. Just because the city council doesn’t want to raise water bills now, someone is still going to have to pay.

    The water department is in control of its fixed costs over the long term, however. The growing demand for water over the long term is what leads it to make capital investment in its plant. Paying for these projects (fixed costs) by relying on revenue from the usage of water (variable revenue), as we now see, is problematic. The solution is to realize that these capital investments are not driven by daily or even yearly usage. Customers should pay for these capital improvements, then, through a fixed charge.

    An alternative would be to charge new connections to the water system a fee that helps pay for the capital investment necessary to expand the water supply. As a matter of fact, the department charges a “Water Plant Equity Fee” just for this purpose. Currently this fee is $1,520. (This is in addition to a fee of $850 for tapping into a water main and installing a meter.) Perhaps the equity fee needs to be raised.

    It appears that it is the desire of the city council to pay for capital improvements to the water system through a way other than raising the fixed portion of water bills. The net effect, whatever the city does, will still be felt by citizens as an increase in the cost of providing water. It would be best if this cost was realized as close as possible to its source, which is the water bill.

    Hopefully the city council will do something to recognize this, regardless of whether Rhonda Holman will support them.

    Here are comments left to this post that were lost and then reconstructed:

    Charlotte: You don’t fully understand. The city water dept. needs this money coming in to pay for their ASR project–which is located up by Burrton along the Arkansas River. They did one part of the project and now they want to do more. ASR, Aquafier S—? Recovery is taking the dirty water out of the Arkansas River when it gets up after a rain, running it through a big above ground filter that creates sludge (which they sell) and then pumping that (supposedly clean water) down into the Halstead Equas Bed. I am not thoroughly convinced that the water they are putting into the clean Equas Bed is all that clean. They say we are drawing water out of the Equas Bed faster than this ASR is putting it back in. They say the city needs to do this for economic development.

    I replied that the aquifer recharge project is an example of the type of capital improvements to plant that I was referring to.

  • Share in the green-energy boom and quit fighting

    Share in the green-energy boom. That’s the title of Rhonda Holman’s editorial in Sunday’s Wichita Eagle.

    It’s backed up in today’s paper by Enough fighting over coal plants. This editorial is notable for a few points.

    Holman makes an argument against the plants by noting that it’s likely that the Obama administration will impose regulation or taxation of these plants. But these plans are unwise and will harm the American economy. Hopefully the Omaba administration will realize this.

    She says the plants will stick “the state with all 11 million tons of carbon dioxide.” If carbon emissions are a problem, it’s because of its contribution to global warming or climate change. It doesn’t matter where the carbon dioxide is produced. Its effect is the same.

    In this argument, she treats carbon emissions as though they were local pollutants. Coal plants do produce these, but they’ve been greatly reduced through technology. Further, local pollutants are of entirely different character from carbon emissions.

    Readers of the Wichita Eagle should be asking if Holman doesn’t know this, or if she does know it, why does she say these things?

    It’s a good question. Facts are sometimes in short supply among radical environmentalists.

    But the precise content of these editorials is not as important as the premises they’re based on. These are that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to save the planet, and that we can create a lot of jobs and wealth by doing so.

    The science behind global warming is not at all settled. See Global Warming Rope-a-Dope for an example.

    As far as green jobs producing wealth, my post Green energy policies causing harm in Europe reports how green jobs in Spain end up costing $774,000 each.

    In Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs, read about a study that concludes “lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives.”

    We need to base Kansas energy policy on facts and reason.

  • Wichita Eagle editorial page calls for more government at all levels

    Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial and opinion page is chock full of plans for more government programs, regulations, taxes, and intervention.

    Rhonda Holman’s editorial calls for more government involvement in setting energy policy so that Kansas can share in the “green-energy boom.” Readers of this blog know that government involvement in energy policy will only lead to disaster. It will lead to more taxes and more government programs, so maybe that’s why Holman is in favor of programs like this.

    Jeff Fluhr of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — itself a taxpayer-funded organization — calls for planning to ensure the success of downtown Wichita. How are these plans to be developed and enforced? Through government, of course. Then, he tries to avoid the “T-word” by using euphemisms like “strategic public investment.” But how does the public “invest” in something except through taxation?

    A featured letter calls for the city to build more swimming pools.

    In the regular letter section, one writer calls for national health care, just like we have national defense.

    Another uses the way that injured birds are cared for by the Kansas Raptor Center to advocate that the government care for young and injured people the same way.

    A former state representative makes the case for more government regulation of political speech.

    Then, to make sure the point is made as clear as possible, a writer who lived through the Great Depression praises Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policies.

    Maybe this big-government stance of the Wichita Eagle editorial page is one of the reasons fewer people are reading it.

  • Wichita school board members should not be re-elected

    Next Tuesday, four members of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, seek to be elected again to their current posts.

    These members — Lanora Nolan, Lynn Rogers, Connie Dietz and Betty Arnold — are part of a board and school district that is increasingly out-of-step with education reforms that are working in other parts of the country. Their policies and actions are harmful to both Wichita schoolchildren and Wichita taxpayers.

    At the time when most of the country is starting to realize that quality teachers, not the number of teachers, is what makes the biggest difference in student outcomes, the Wichita school district is going the wrong way. The bond issue, with its focus on reducing class size, will force the district to hire more teachers. This makes it more likely that schoolchildren in Wichita will be taught by poorly-performing teachers.

    Its contract with its teachers union forbids any type of merit pay that might induce the best teachers to stay in teaching. Instead, all teachers are paid the same. Only length of service and extra education credentials allow teachers to earn more. Now researchers have found that length of service and the credentials earned at university schools of education make very little difference in student outcomes.

    Across the country parents can take advantage of school choices programs such as charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits. These programs give parents — instead of school administrators and politicians — choice as to where to send their children to school. In some cases, they allow parents to decide how their own tax dollars should be spent. The Wichita school district, including its board and the incumbent candidates that stand for election next week, are firmly against these type of programs that have benefited many students and parents. They prefer a government monopoly.

    The Wichita school district and its board are miles behind other school districts and governmental agencies regarding transparency and openness. Its recent search for a new superintendent was conducted in such a secretive manner that even the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman — one of the district’s several apologists at that newspaper — was critical.

    The district and board’s attitude towards citizens is nothing less than hostile. In particular, board member, now board president, Lynn Rogers has told citizens that records requests are a burden to the district. When citizens ask for evidence of claims the district makes, Rogers advises them to use Google to look things up for themselves.

    The board gets even little things wrong. For example, the board’s agenda that’s posted on the USD 259 website holds appendixes, which are usually attached files that hold additional information such as a Powerpoint presentation. But these files are removed quickly after the meeting. Most governmental agencies leave them available for eternity.

    Three board members, in their joint campaign materials, state they are proud of 11 years of rising test scores. Across the country school districts and states have watered-down testing standards in response to political pressure to produce rising test scores. Is this the case in Wichita and Kansas? We don’t know. But as scores rise on tests administered by the state, they remain unchanged on the national tests that are immune from local political pressures.

    The fact that all of the candidates facing election challenges have advertised jointly is evidence of another severe problem on the Wichita board of education: Rarely is there controversy or evidence of independent thought by board members. Consider the bond issue from last year, which passed narrowly (51 percent to 49 percent) when voted on by the public. Board members were unanimous in their support of the bond issue. What are the odds of that? (Well, board member Jeff Davis initially dissented, but only because he thought his district didn’t get its fair share. His straying from the board’s groupthink mentality was short-lived, however, as at the next meeting he changed his vote.)

    Then there’s the bond issue from last year. One analysis found that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, came from contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction. The board rewarded Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture for its efforts in passing the bond issue with a no-bid $3.7 million contract to manage the bond issue.

    As large as the bond issue is, to board members it’s not enough. Board members started with a list of projects that totaled some $550 million. These projects are on the back burner, and as soon as this board senses the time is right, it will propose another bond issue. Count on it.

    We should remember the board’s conduct during the election. Calling a special election to be held in May, the board delayed it when it appeared the political landscape was not in their favor — after their opponents had mobilized and spent resources. The board appeared to rely on a hapless citizen group during the summer months for recommendations. Despite the district’s denials, huge amounts of district resources, all provided by taxpayers, were used to promote the bond issue.

    This Wichita school district and its board is an institution firmly rooted in and preferring a big-government style of education monopoly. It ignores evidence of reforms that work, preferring to remain beholden to special interests such as the teachers union, education bureaucrats, and firms that benefit from school construction. None of its members deserve re-election.

  • Articles of Interest

    Wichita real estate development, redistricting, newspapers, free markets

    Wichita developer plans to turn old school into apartments (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) All that’s missing from this story is the developer’s propensity to seek subsidy, that is, a handout from government. We’ll have to wait to see how that develops.

    Longtime Wichita developer George Ablah may be forced to shut down (Wichita Business Journal, a subscription service) “George Ablah says the economic downturn could force him to soon shut down his commercial real estate business. Ablah, who celebrated his 80th birthday Tuesday, estimates he has purchased and developed $2 billion of property … Now he wonders how much longer Ablah Enterprises can continue, given the current market conditions and a presidential administration that he says is crippling his business.”

    Rethink redistricting in Kansas (Rhonda Holman in the Wichita Eagle) A cure for the problem Holman discusses in this editorial is term limits. But in the past she’s written: “Term limits are a dumb, artificial device that ends up throwing out the good leaders along with the bad and tends to fill governing bodies with novices who are easy prey for lobbyists.”

    Editor’s message about changes at the Monitor (Christian Science Monitor) Today is the last daily printed edition of the Christian Science Monitor, although there will be a weekly print edition. I wonder if this newspaper’s reporters could get press credentials at the Kansas Capitol? I was told that because the Voice For Liberty in Wichita doesn’t print on paper, my application for credentials would not be considered.

    The Miraculous Market (A speech by Leonard E. Read from 1965) “Awakening during the night, I flicked a bedside switch and soon the room was flooded with a piano concerto composed by Johannes Brahms. Perhaps the music itself induced a reflective mood: how explain this wonder of wonders for my enjoyment and with a near imperceptible effort on my part?” (Back in 1965 there were no IPods, CDs, and stereo was a recent invention.) As our country appears to be moving away from free markets to more government control — be it at the federal level, at the Kansas statehouse, or in Wichita city hall — we need be aware of the tremendous innovation that markets inspire in man.

  • Articles of Interest

    Education reform, downtown Wichita arena, Kansas smoking ban, downtown developers

    Education’s Ground Zero (Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times) Describes the efforts of Washington D.C. public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to reform the system. She’s fired one-third of the principals. Kristof reminds us of the importance of teachers: “The reform camp is driven partly by research suggesting that great teachers are far more important to student learning than class size, school resources or anything else. One study suggests that if black kids could get teachers from the profession’s most effective quartile for four years in a row, the achievement gap would disappear.” In Wichita, however, USD 259 is taking the opposite approach.

    Intrust Bank Arena management contract unusual, but not necessarily bad (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) Explores the nature of the arrangement between Sedgwick County and SMG as compared to other arenas. “The bottom line for these officials: Sedgwick County has a good deal with SMG, but has a responsibility to closely monitor the arena’s performance for taxpayers who paid for the building with a sales tax increase.” More coverage of related issues is Wichita downtown arena contract seems to require Sedgwick County approval.

    Details of Intrust Bank Arena contract with Thunder are a secret (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) This is an earlier story, interesting for the confusion it raises or exposes, I’m not sure which. Reported in the story: “The arena’s financial performance would be monitored by the county through what [Sedgwick County assistant manager Ron] Holt characterized as limited records access. But [Sedgwick County Commissioner Gwen] Welshimer said she didn’t know how the county would track the arena’s financial performance. ‘We don’t have any access to their books that I know of,’ she said.” Read the county’s contract with SMG, however, and you learn that SMG will maintain accounting records, have them audited, and give Sedgwick County access to them “upon reasonable advance notice.” Also, the county has the right to audit the records at any time.

    Why state smoking ban seems inevitable Rhonda Holman in the Wichita Eagle Editorial Blog) In this post, Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman makes explicit the connection between state-paid health care and the state’s interest in controlling behavior: “That’s [passing the statewide smoking ban] the only responsible action the Legislature can take, given the increasing cost burden of smoking-related illnesses on the state …” If the state (that includes the U.S. Federal government) starts taking responsibility for more health care, smoking bans are just the start of state meddling in behavior.

    Minnesota Guys ready to start face-lifts of downtown Wichita buildings (Bill Wilson in Wichita Eagle) Real Development starts work on the improvement of facades of some of its buildings. In the article developer Michael Elzufon manages to use the word “iconic” twice. This article doesn’t tell how these improvements are paid for: a confusing arrangement where the city loans money and recoups it in special assessment taxes. A hefty development fee is being paid to the developers, which allows them to profit for fixing up their own buildings. But they’ll pay that back in the form of the special taxes — or will they? It’s hard to tell where the money is going in these agreements. This benefits developers like Elzufon and politicians on the Wichita city council, as if citizens knew what was really going on, they wouldn’t be happy.

  • Editorial Board Pen Names at the Wichita Eagle

    Some comment-writers to this blog make very good points that deserve more visibility. This is the case with the following comment left anonymously to the post In Wichita, let’s disclose everything. I mean everything.

    It looks like Wichita Liberty has broken another unreported story and has exposed the fact that a portion of the Wichita Eagle’s editorial board operates under a pen name.

    Perhaps “Ms. Holman’s” editorials should be placed next to the equally anonymous opinion line comments. I must note that the anonymous comments appearing in the Eagle are usually much more pointed than the signed editorial commentary.

    I wonder how conflicts of interest by employees and their families are handled by the newspaper? If “Ms. Holman” was married to a school administrator that might be a very useful fact to know when evaluating her credibility on government school spending issues.

    What if she was married to an attorney involved in suing the state over school finance? Full disclosure can lead into a number of interesting places.

    There was very little publicity provided to the very salient fact that the Wichita Eagle was a donor to the group backing the 2000 Wichita school bond issue with a sizable donation. I’ll have to ask Wichita Liberty to look into any news media contributions to either side of the 2008 Wichita school bond issue campaign.

    In response to the question posed at the end of this comment: The campaign finance report for groups involved on both sides of the Wichita school bond issue in 2008 showed no contribution by the Wichita Eagle.

    Is this issue of Rhonda Holman not using her real name a substantive issue? My name was in the Wichita Eagle quite a few times last year in my role as an opponent of the Wichita school bond issue. What would have been the Eagle’s response — in both the newsroom and editorial board offices — if I had used a pen name? What would the use of an assumed name indicated about my willingness to be held accountable for the things I said and wrote?