Voice For Liberty

Tag: Richard Ranzau

Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

  • Hugh Nicks and the Sedgwick County fishing dock

    Hugh Nicks and the Sedgwick County fishing dock

    Sedgwick County Commission candidate Hugh Nicks criticizes his opponent for living up to the values Nicks himself proclaims.

    On July 13, 2018, Hugh Nicks wrote this on his campaign’s Facebook page, referring to Richard Ranzau: “And even questioned the need for handicapped-accessible recreational options.” 1

    Nicks is a candidate for the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, District 4. His opponent is the incumbent Richard Ranzau.

    The accusation is a bit vague, but it’s pretty certain that Nicks is referring to an item from 2011 when commissioners were asked to approve spending $53,500 on what was described as “VIC’S LAKE FISHING DOCK – FACILITIES DEPARTMENT FUNDING — ADA COMPLIANCE UPGRADES.”

    Examining the record, we find that yes, there is a grain of truth in Nicks’ allegation: Ranzau did question this item, but not because it was “handicapped-accessible.” Here’s what happened.

    On September 28, 2011, when this item came before the commissioners, Commissioner Ranzau expressed concern with the cost of the fishing dock, given the information commissioners had been provided. So too did Commissioners Karl Peterjohn and Tim Norton. A motion was made to defer the item, and all commissioners present that day voted in agreement. 2

    At the next meeting, on October 5, 2011, the item was again on the agenda. 3 At this meeting Joe Thomas, at that time Acting Director of the Purchasing Department, explained that the dock itself did not cost $53,500. Instead, the dock cost only $26,162. Other necessary items in the project included site prep ($6,920), a concrete sidewalk ($3,066), a concrete pavement parking and picnic area which includes an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant picnic table ($6,852), an asphalt drive ($7,400), site restoration ($1,500), and “general conditions” ($1,600).

    Knowing this, $53,500 seems reasonable. And Ranzau said as much in remarks after these costs were presented: “So my questions were not based on whether or not because it was an ADA dock. If you take the word ADA off of it and you come to me and say you’re going to build a $53,000 dock, I’m going to ask, do we really need to do that? Because that’s a lot of money for a dock, and so we asked for further information about how that money was going to be spent, and it clarifies a lot of information.”

    After more discussion, there was a vote, and all commissioners voted in favor of building the dock, including Ranzau and Peterjohn.

    Now that we know the whole story, why would Hugh Nicks be critical of Ranzau on this matter? Especially considering these values listed in bullet points on Nicks’ campaign literature:

    • Never be afraid of hard work.
    • Listen openly. Debate respectfully. Ask tough questions.
    • Be conservative with finances and generous with time.
    • Decisions have consequences. Make them wisely.

    I’ve emphasized where Ranzau’s action on the fishing dock aligns with Nicks’ values. The questions Ranzau asked weren’t really “tough questions,” but they were needed and submitted respectfully. The answers helped the commissioners learn they were indeed being conservative with finances. It was a decision made wisely, with complete information.

    So exactly what problems does Hugh Nicks have with Richard Ranzau?

    —
    Following, relevant Sedgwick County Commission meeting minutes.

    Excerpt from the meeting of the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on September 28, 2011:

    Chairman Unruh said, “Now we’re ready to discuss Item 6, and Commissioner Ranzau, I will ask you to lead that discussion, also.”

    Commissioner Ranzau said, “Well, this is $50,000 for a boat dock, or for a dock out at the fishing lake. While I’ve had time to go out and look at the bridge at the Boys Ranch, I’ve not looked at this specific thing. And with the information I’ve been given, I’m not prepared to support this, because I’m not sure this is the best route to go. Particularly at this current status with our finances here, this seems like a lot of money for a fishing dock. And even though I’m a fisherman, I’m just not convinced. Unless I’m totally convinced it’s appropriate enough of a project, I’m not prepared to vote yes. It’s really up to the will of the Board. Today, if we vote on it today, I’ll vote no.” Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m concerned with the price tag of $53,500 for basically a boat dock. I have concerns on the expense here, and I realize this is the low bid, and it’s a low bid by significant margin from two other firms that provided bids, and there was a much larger list of firms that didn’t even offer. My question to ask, is if we could also put this issue off a week like we did Item number 4 without causing any difficulty?”

    Mr. William P. Buchanan said, “Yes.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to see if we could get some more information on this project, just like we did on the prior item.”

    MOTION

    Commissioner Peterjohn moved to defer Item 6 of the Board of Bids and Contracts Regular Meeting of September 22, 2011.

    Commissioner Ranzau seconded the motion.

    Chairman Unruh said, “All right. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Commissioner Norton.”

    Commissioner Norton said, “I’ll support the deferral. I would like to ask a question, though. It talks about that it’s not just the boat dock that we’re, actually we’re replacing one that should be out of service. Is that correct?”

    There followed more discussion, and then the vote on the deferral. All commissioners voted in favor, except for Commissioner Skelton, who was absent.

    Here are the complete minutes for the dock item from the meeting of the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on October 5, 2011:

    L 11-1028 RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6 OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: VIC’S LAKE FISHING DOCK- FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.

    Presented by Joe Thomas, Director, Purchasing Department. This item was deferred at the September 28, 2011 Commission Meeting.

    RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the recommendations of the Board of Bids and Contracts.

    Mr. Joe Thomas, Acting Director, Purchasing Department, greeted the Commissioners and said, “The recommendation for this item is to accept the low bid from DanCo Enterprises, Inc in the amount of $53,500.00. I’ll be happy to answer questions. We also have members of staff that are available to answer questions as well, and I recommend approval of this item.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “All right. Thank you, Joe. We’ve had lots of discussion and exposure to this item. Commissioners, are there any other comment or questions that need to be answered?”

    MOTION
    Commissioner Norton moved to approve the recommendation from the Board of Bids and Contracts. Commissioner Skelton seconded the motion.

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joe, could you give us just a quick rundown in terms of the, because the heartburn that we expressed last week was we were looking at a dock that was $53,000, and then we discussed $53,000 and change, and we discovered it was more than just a dock. And I was very much interested in getting for the record and appreciating of staff and other folks in terms of getting the bid broken down so we had a better understanding of what the numbers
    actually were.”

    Mr. Thomas said, “Yes. The fishing dock itself was $26,162, site prep was $6,920. Then there is a concrete sidewalk in the amount of $3,066. Then there is a concrete pavement parking and picnic area which includes ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant picnic table, $6,852. The asphalt drive was $7,400. To restore the site was $1,500, and general conditions $1,600 that made that total of $53,500.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “Thank you, Joe. Because Sedgwick County Park is, at the moment, currently surrounded by my district even though my best efforts to try to and get it split it up between myself and Commissioner Ranzau was not successful. But it’s a jewel, I think, that’s valuable for the entire Commission and the entire community, so I’m planning to be supportive now that we have this additional information and details. It’s a lot easier to explain the costs. It’s still an awful lot of money, but I’m comfortable with it, and I’ll be supportive.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Ranzau.”

    Commissioner Ranzau said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make several comments here. I originally wanted to postpone this or had some issues with this for a couple of reasons. I asked the question, do we really need to do, have an ADA dock given our current situation, our financial situation, and why do we need to do this now and I also questioned the cost of it. I’ve gotten some feedback, some of it supportive of my position, some of it is not. Some people think my opposition is somehow because I oppose the ADA or people with disabilities, which could not be further from the truth. I think it’s important to remember that we have an ADA plan here at the county which I have supported voted for things previously and I will continue to do so. So my questions were not based on whether or not because it was an ADA dock. If you take the word ADA off of it and you come to me and say you’re going to build a $53,000 dock, I’m going to ask, do we really need to do that? Because that’s a lot of money for a dock, and so we asked for further information about how that money was going to be spent, and it clarifies a lot of information. I think it’s reasonable and justified to question how we spend taxpayer dollars regardless of what it’s going to be spent on.

    “I think the fact that it has an ADA stamp on it doesn’t mean in my mind that it should get a pass. I have questioned things that the Sheriff Department is going to do. I’ve questioned things that the Fire Department is going to do. I’ve questioned things that the road and bridge, Public Works are going to do. It’s not because I don’t support those things, but I want to make sure that each project and each cost is appropriate. I will continue to support the ADA program, but once again, if there is a program in the future that I think the costs seems a little out of whack, I’m not going to hesitate on behalf of the citizens to ask for more information and put the vote off if necessary. I also want to point out that at this particular meeting, we actually postponed two items.

    Commissioner Ranzau continued, ““It was this item, and another one was a bridge that we’re going to possibly put in down at the [Judge Riddle] Boys Ranch. I called it a bridge to nowhere, because it’s actually a bridge to get horses to the pasture. And in my mind, that was the most problematic of the two, to be honest, because it’s almost four times the cost almost as what this is. That’s the one I spent more time investigating and learning about and as you’ll notice, it’s not back on the agenda yet, so we’ll have to address that in the future. I’m not singling out the ADA program at all. I have voted for them in the past and will continue to do so, but I’ll take a close eye at every spending project we have. And like I said, there were two different items on last week’s agenda that I talked about, and the most clearly problematic was the other one, the other one that didn’t get all the attention or all the press. So I want to clarify that so that people understand where I’m coming from. As I said, I make no apologies for examining how we are spending taxpayer dollars regardless of where it comes from, if it’s ADA, police, sheriff, whatever, these are all good programs, but we just need to make sure we get the best bang for our buck. Thank you.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Before we go to vote here, Mr. David Calvert is here, a leader in the community for ADA issues. Did you want to make a comment, sir?”

    Mr. David Calvert, Chair, Wichita/Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I would like to, Mr. Chairman, just briefly, and I’ll spare you the 30-minute…I’ve got a microphone on. I don’t know if it works. I can hear myself, but that’s about it. I am David Calvert. I’m an attorney, but I also chair and have chaired for the last six years the Wichita/Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board, started out as the Wichita Access Advisory Board to advise the city on disability issues. Sedgwick County joined this board by this board’s request in, I think 2007, and each of you Commissioners have appointees to that board and the Manager has appointees to that board as well. I will spare you the history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I will say as part of the proactive stance this county has taken and this board has taken on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a self-evaluation and transition plan was created in 2006. Self-evaluation itself is online. It is 200 pages. I don’t necessarily urge you to read it. I will tell you that the transition plan is also online, and there is a link to those plans on the home page, again to the county’s credit.

    “The list of facilities covered by the transition plan is itself six pages long. The link to the Sedgwick County Park gets you to the Sedgwick County Park’s transition plan, which is 17 pages long. The total of all of these is like a couple of thousand pages. This particular fishing dock is referenced in the transition plan, pointing out that there are no accessible docks at all in Sedgwick County Park, and each one of the projects set forth in the transition plan is given a priority rating from very high to low priority. Low priority items can be done 5 or 10 years from now, high priority and very high priority items, many which should have been done by now. This is a very high priority item, and simply gives access to people with disabilities, which covers statistically probably 75,000 people in Sedgwick County alone, and if we all live long enough, it will cover each and every one of us at one time in our lives.

    “The reason everybody doesn’t end up with a disability is a lot of us simply die first, which I guess is the ultimate disability, isn’t it? But I would, this is part of this Commission’s continuing commitment to ADA compliance. People with disabilities don’t ask for special favors.

    “We ask for compliance with the ADA, which simply gives people with disabilities the same right to be independent that people without disabilities have, and I think that that’s what this does. I would urge this Commission to unanimously support this bid. Thank you.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, sir. We have a couple more comments. Commissioner Ranzau.”

    Commissioner Ranzau said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to clarify a couple of things just for the public. The $53,000 we’re spending, $26,000 is for the dock itself. Now, that’s been part of my consternation that regardless whether it’s ADA compliant or not that that seems like a lot of money, but I know Mark Sroufe has done some research, and it’s possible that that actual cost will come in less than that, because he’s compared it to the price of some docks that other facilities have put into place. Also one of the big questions was why are we doing a dock now compared to, well, when you put it in the context of the overall budget. And I’ve been told that it’s a matter of priority and timing in that for the parks system, this is the high priority because, as he stated, we have no accessible docks, and it’s also a factor of timing in that the dock is getting to the point that now it needs to be replaced. So, I have to put all of those things together and then decide if this is the best way to spend money on behalf of the citizens at this time, and that’s why we took the time to ask the questions to get more information.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Skelton.”

    Commissioner Skelton said, “I just wanted to concur with Mr. Calvert’s comments. I appreciate them very much. That provides the basis for my support for this project today.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Peterjohn.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “I’ll just state for the record I appreciate Mr. Calvert’s work on a volunteer basis for the board that works with these issues here in Sedgwick County. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you. Commissioner Norton.”

    Commissioner Norton said, “Well, I’m going to be supportive. I’ve been supportive of what we’ve done over the years for our population that have difficulties maneuvering our community. The truth is to me it’s not about ADA, although some of that is prescriptive, it’s about what’s right for our community and the population that we live with that are part of our families, a robust part of our community and doing the right thing. So it’s not about the ADA, it’s prescriptive on what we do when we remodel something. It’s about what is right for our community. We’ve developed Sedgwick County Park with a balanced playground through help from West Side Rotary [Club of Wichita]. We continue to try to make our community as vibrant as we can for all the populations. So I think it’s the right thing to do. We were going to replace that anyway, and it makes sense to replace it in a manner that will make it accessible to all citizens regardless of age and difficulty. That’s all I have, Mr. Chair.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “Thank you, Commissioner. I don’t believe I can add anything to all the conversation.

    Chairman Unruh continued, “I also express my appreciation to Mr. Calvert and for your leadership on our committee that addresses these issues and I also see Lindsey here, she’s our staff person who keeps us on track. We’re proud of the valuable work she does for us all, so thank you.”

    Mr. Calvert said, “I want to say, Mr. Chairman, if I might, Lindsey is the Vice Chairman of our committee, and she’s the one that does all the work.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “It’s good to have someone like that around, isn’t it? Mr. Manager.”

    Mr. Buchanan said, “I can’t help myself. So does that mean you’re the pretty face?”

    Mr. Calvert said, “Are you looking at me or are you looking…”

    Mr. Buchanan said, “Yes, no, I’m looking at you, Dave.”

    Commissioner Peterjohn said, “I think the Manager needs a new pair of glasses.”

    Chairman Unruh said, “You were right, Mr. Manager, that was unnecessary. Madam Clerk, I think we have a motion, we’re ready to call the vote.”

    There was a vote, and all commissioners voted in favor.

    —
    Notes

    1. Nicks For County Commission Facebook page, July 13, 2018. Available at https://www.facebook.com/NicksForCountyCommission/photos/a.1633354576739927.1073741832.1591968844211834/2000527696689278/. ↩
    2. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, September 28, 2011. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=161070&GUID=2982541F-CC0E-4FFE-9DE3-CE1C4D59FA4D. ↩
    3. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, October 5, 2011. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=162540&GUID=1CF92BD6-DF16-460A-8BFA-F1B86A5AB115. ↩
  • Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC mailing

    Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC mailing

    In a campaign for Sedgwick County Commission, the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC whips up a lie in order to criticize a candidate.

    In a postcard paid for by the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee, Richard Ranzau is criticized: “Ranzau also suggested that Wichita annex a large local job-creating aerospace employer to generate more tax revenue.”

    This claim is based on a farcical interpretation of what the commissioner actually said.

    Excerpt from Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC mailing. Click for larger.

    The postcard references as the source of the remarks, “Sedgwick County Commissioners Meeting Transcript, 4/18/18.” If you look at this transcript, here’s what Ranzau said: 1

    Additionally, Spirit is not in the city of Wichita. It’s an industrial district, this is an agreement between the city and Wichita. If they would be annexed by the City of Wichita, taxes would go up by over nine mills. Okay. So that saves them $532,000 a year over the 20 years of this evaluation, I mean that’s $10.6 million. I think we should get credit for doing that to help them out. Okay? There’s other things that are out there that haven’t been quantified, and there’s things like I’ve say at the state level that should still come to fruition later on.

    The problem with the Wichita Chamber PAC’s claim is this: Ranzau did not suggest that Wichita annex Spirit. He merely illustrated that property taxes within the City of Wichita are higher than those outside the city.

    (Here’s the data: The total mill levy in the industrial district where Spirit is currently located is 114.895. The new facility, in the Wichita city limits, has a mill levy of 124.244. So, within Wichita, the tax rate is higher by 9.349 mills. 2)

    The Wichita Chamber Regional PAC has attributed to Ranzau something he did not say. The Chamber’s PAC’s claim is not even close to what Ranzau said.

    The Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce PAC is lying. It should retract the accusation and apologize not only to Richard Ranzau, but also to the voters of Sedgwick County. It is they who are harmed by lies such as this.

    Hugh Nicks is Ranzau’s opponent in the August primary election. The Wichita Chamber PAC supports Nicks with mailings like this. Let’s ask Hugh Nicks if he supports the Wichita Regional Chamber PAC lying about Ranzau.

    —
    Notes

    1. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. Meeting detail, April 18, 2018. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=602255&GUID=CCB97C42-38F7-421C-85C5-05676B65D89B. ↩
    2. “The total mill levy in the industrial district is 114.895. The new facility, in the City limits, has a mill levy of 124.244. So, within the City, the tax rate is higher by 9.349 mills. Tax levies in the industrial district include County Fire, Township and South Central Kansas Library District. They total 23.318 mills. Tax levies in the City limits exclude these three and add 32.667 mills for the City of Wichita. Spirit’s tax savings due to the lower tax rate is approximately $532,000.” Email from Brent Shelton, Economic Development & Tax System Director, Sedgwick County Division of Finance. April 12, 2018. ↩
  • Is the pursuit of intergovernmental grants wise?

    Is the pursuit of intergovernmental grants wise?

    Is the pursuit of intergovernmental grants wise? Would local governments fund certain programs if the money was not seen as “free?”

    An eariler version of this article failed to distinguish Jim Howell’s position from the majority of candidates. I regret the error.

    At a forum of candidates for Sedgwick County Commission, the subject of intergovernmental grants was discussed. All candidates except for current commissioners Richard Ranzau and Jim Howell were fully in favor — enthusiastic, even — of the grant system. Both Ranzau and Howell expressed skepticism of the wisdom and efficacy of the grant system.

    Other candidates participating in the forum had several justifications for accepting intergovernmental grants: It’s our tax money we sent to Washington or Topeka, it’s foolish not to try to get back our tax money, the grants are already funded, the money will simply go somewhere else. There are a few problems with these lines of reasoning.

    First, the grants are not “already paid for.” Since the federal government runs a deficit, we’re not paying the entire cost of government. To say that some things (program A, B, and C) are paid for, and other things (programs D, E, and F) are not paid for, is making artificial distinctions that can’t be justified.

    But deficit spending (on grants or other things) makes sense to politicians who want to deliver more government services than are being paid for by current levels of taxation. Federal and state grants make sense to local politicians and bureaucrats who want to be able to say they “won” federal or state dollars, so that the county or city can spend at no one’s cost. That’s how grant money is often characterized: Spending at no one’s cost.

    But politicians and bureaucrats across the nation make the same argument. We all wind up spending money at no one’s cost, so they say.

    Then: We must “try to get back our tax money.” This highlights another absurdity of government grants. We pay taxes, and then hope that we win the competition to get back our money. Who developed this system? Again, politicians like to boast they “won” grant funding that has no cost. Bureaucrats thrive on the jobs and power that grants provide, both locally and at the state and federal levels. Someone has to collect the taxes, write the applications for grants, evaluate the applications, administer the grant money at the state or federal level, administer the grant money at the local level, write reports on how the grant money is spent, and then someone has to read the reports. This creates a lot of jobs for bureaucrats. It also costs a lot, which is a deadweight cost, that is, costs that provide no benefit.

    (If politicians and bureaucrats in other states, cities, and counties are smarter than us, do we have a fair chance of getting our tax money back in the form of grants?)

    Finally: There is evidence that intergovernmental grants accepted today result in higher taxes tomorrow. Worse, this is for spending that local governments might not choose if local government bore the entire cost. But after the grant ends and after a constituency is created, it’s difficult to stop the spending.

    Following, from 2013, a presentation of research on grants and future taxation.

    Federal grants seen to increase future local spending

    “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” — Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman

    Is this true? Do federal grants cause state and/or local tax increases in the future after the government grant ends? Economists Russell S. Sobel and George R. Crowley have examined the evidence, and they find the answer is yes.

    The research paper is titled Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes? Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis.

    The difference between this research and most other is that Sobel and Crowley look at the impact of federal grants on state and local tax policy in future periods.

    This is important because, in their words, “Federal grants often result in states creating new programs and hiring new employees, and when the federal funding for that specific purpose is discontinued, these new state programs must either be discontinued or financed through increases in state own source taxes.”

    The authors caution: “Far from always being an unintended consequence, some federal grants are made with the intention that states will pick up funding the program in the future.”

    The conclusion to their research paper states:

    Our results clearly demonstrate that grant funding to state and local governments results in higher own source revenue and taxes in the future to support the programs initiated with the federal grant monies. Our results are consistent with Friedman’s quote regarding the permanence of temporary government programs started through grant funding, as well as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s reasoning for trying to deny some federal stimulus monies for his state due to the future tax implications. Most importantly, our results suggest that the recent large increase in federal grants to state and local governments that has occurred as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level as these governments raise revenue to continue these newly funded programs into the future. Federal grants to state and local governments have risen from $461 billion in 2008 to $654 billion in 2010. Based on our estimates, future state taxes will rise by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants states received today, while local revenues will rise by between 23 and 46 cents for every dollar in federal (or state) grants received today. Using our estimates, this increase of $200 billion in federal grants will eventually result in roughly $80 billion in future state and local tax and own source revenue increases. This suggests the true cost of fiscal stimulus is underestimated when the costs of future state and local tax increases are overlooked.

    So: Not only are we taxed to pay for the cost of funding federal and state grants, the units of government that receive grants are very likely to raise their own levels of taxation in response to the receipt of the grants. This is a cycle of ever-expanding government that needs to end, and right now.

    An introduction to the paper is Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes?.

  • For Hugh Nicks, a return to the backroom deal?

    For Hugh Nicks, a return to the backroom deal?

    Remarks from a candidate for Sedgwick County Commission call for presenting a unified front to the public.

    Speaking to the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Sedgwick County Commission candidate Hugh Nicks called for leadership to end what he called “divisive behavior:” “We can’t have — we can’t have the kind of divisive behavior that we have going on right now — we just — it’s just not — it’s just not acceptable.”

    His opponent in the August Republican Party primary election is Richard Ranzau, who currently holds the office.

    The “divisive behavior” that Nicks objects to takes several forms, but it’s clear he thinks that the Sedgwick County Commission should present a united front: The commission should have a plan that’s agreed to, and if commissioners don’t follow the plan, there should be consequences. At least that’s the moral of a story he told members of guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    That attitude is problematic. Especially so because the Sedgwick County Commission is different from a legislature. At the commission, there is no opportunity for interested parties — lobbyists and regular people — to testify before a committee as legislation is being developed. At the commission, there is no committee mark-up process in which the text of a bill is crafted and finalized. There is no committee vote that decides whether to recommend the bill to the entire legislative body.

    So there really isn’t much debate or disagreement in public at the Sedgwick County Commission meetings. And when there is, it may be squelched. Last year a commissioner attempted to offer two amendments to a proposal. He was trying to generate a consensus. But the majority of commissioners wouldn’t have it, and the vote happened without considering the amendments. (See For Sedgwick County Commission, too much debate.)

    It’s important that there be discussion in public, even if “divisive.” The prelude to the Kansas Open Meetings Act gives a reason why: “In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that meetings for the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business be open to the public.” 1

    When things are not done in view of the public, we call them backroom deals, with all the well-deserved negative connotations. Here’s an example, from 2012: Sedgwick County staff and several commissioners worked out a deal to sell an unused radio tower for $280,000. Commissioners Ranzau and Peterjohn thought there should be an auction. There was an auction, and the county received net proceeds of $553,872. 2

    There is already too much suspicion that backroom deals are common at the county and City of Wichita. The more important and “divisive” a matter is, the more discussion it deserves in public.

    But that isn’t the attitude of candidate Nicks when he said, “It’d be like a business: I mean, if in our business when we had closed door meetings when, when we argue about how we move forward, in our, in our business, we didn’t go out in front of our employees afterwards and act the same way that we did back behind closed doors. It just doesn’t work. And if we went and acted that way in front of our customers, if we did, we wouldn’t have any customers.”

    Business and government are different things. A business is accountable only to its owners and shareholders, and also to the public by acting lawfully. Other than this, a business can do what it wants. It may make decisions using any means its owners tolerate. 3

    Government, however, is different. It should be accountable to the people. Sometimes — frequently — that requires “divisive” discussion and debate. And the more important the matter, the more discussion and debate — transparency — is needed.

    It’s a lot easier on commissioners if the attitude is “go along to get along.” That attitude has led to a faltering Wichita economy as majorities of members of the Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission have avoided debate and gone along with the advice of staff and economic development regimes. I think this is the strategy of Hugh Nicks, should he be elected to the commission.

    It might be tempting to dismiss these remarks as having been made by an uninformed candidate. But Nicks says he has been running since October 2017 so that he can learn about the issues. 4

    Following are excerpts of remarks of Hugh Nicks and Richard Ranzau at the Wichita Pachyderm Club, June 8, 2018.

    Hugh Nicks:

    In the area — in the area of leadership, uh, it always starts at the top. Yeah, it doesn’t matter what organization it is, it always starts at the top. I’ll give you just a couple of examples. Uh, when I first started out as a young guy, and I was coaching, I worked for a guy Lafayette Norwood. Maybe some of you know that name. Uh, he was the first black basketball coach — the city league’s first black coach in the city of Wichita, actually. And I worked for the man for two years and learned some hard lessons from him because he wanted to fire me a couple times.

    Yeah, he wanted to fire me because one day I decided I’d run some drills that he would not have agreed upon and when we got back in the locker room and got all the kids checked out, he came and said, “I believe I’m gonna fire you.” I said, “I need that job.” It pays 6,200 dollars a year. I already said that. He said, “Well I saw what you were doing down at the other end of the court. It’s not what we agreed on. And uh, so, when we have a plan, we leave this, this office, then you’re gonna do what you’re supposed to do, and you’re not gonna counter anything that I say out on that floor because we’re a team and we’re gonna move forward.”

    Uh, so that — that was one of my first lessons that I learned with regard to leadership. But I, I think it starts at the top, so here’s what I see at the county: Um, you know, we can’t have — we can’t have the kind of divisive behavior that we have going on right now — we just — it’s just not — it’s just not acceptable.

    Now, it’s alright to disagree in my view. I mean, I’m probably one of the — one of the guys that disagree with and vehemently if I have a strong opinion. But it’s not done in public. You just — you just — you just can’t do that. So, if you want to have an argument with me and go back behind closed doors and have it all day long, that’s alright with me. But when we come out and we’re in front of a staff, then were gonna act differently, and we’re certainly gonna act differently in front of our constituents — in front of, in front of the, the people that we represent. It’d be like a business: I mean, if in our business when we had closed door meetings when, when we argue about how we move forward, in our, in our business, we didn’t go out in front of our employees afterwards and act the same way that we did back behind closed doors. It just doesn’t work. And if we went and acted that way in front of our customers, if we did, we wouldn’t have any customers.

    So I’m a proponent, and trying to answer that question from back there in, in terms of leadership style, that we need a different leadership style in the county. Now Richard’s probably gonna take exception with that because he fights for what he believes in and I understand that. But it’s a matter of the way we go about it in my view, uh, and everything starts at the top. I mean, it starts at the top and works its way down, uh, that’s — that’s how I view that.

    —
    Notes

    1. Kansas Statutes Annotated 75-4317. Available at https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch75/075_043_0017.html. ↩
    2. As a result of system upgrades, the county no longer needs a radio tower located near 77th Street North and Interstate 135. Pixius Communications, LLC made an offer to purchase the tower and the five acre tower site for $280,000. The county proceeded making arrangements for the sale, preparing a sales agreement contract between Sedgwick County and Pixius with a sales price of $280,000, along with several other legal documents necessary to support the sale. … But commissioners Richard Ranzau and Karl Peterjohn felt that the best way to sell the tower was through an auction. … The result of the auction? A Florida company offered $610,000. After a sales commission ($55,000) and half of closing costs ($1,128), the county will net $553,872. That’s almost twice the price the county manager and two commissioners were willing to sell the tower for. See Weeks, Bob. Sedgwick County tower sale was not in citizens’ best interest. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/sedgwick-county-government/sedgwick-county-tower-sale-was-not-in-citizens-best-interest/. ↩
    3. It’s true that some government officials say we must run government like a business. They usually mean that until they are held to the standards of accountability the private sector faces. Then, things are different. Accountability is avoided. (The non-discussion of expenses of the Intrust Bank Arena is an example of evading business-type accountability by members of the Sedgwick County Commission. See Intrust Bank Arena loss for 2017 is $4,222,182.) ↩
    4. “You may wonder why I’m announcing so early, since the Republican Primary for the County Commission seat isn’t until August 2018. The reason is simple. I like to do my homework. I want to learn about the way Sedgwick County governs, and the rationale behind the decisions that have been made. I want to learn about the issues that are most important to the people in the 4th District. I think serving as County Commissioner is too important to take an on-the-job-training approach, and I don’t want to be on a learning curve at the taxpayers’ expense.” Nicks4commissioner.com. News. October 19, 2017. Available at http://www.nicks4commissioner.com/news.html. . ↩
  • From Pachyderm: Commission Candidates Hugh Nicks and Richard Ranzau

    From Pachyderm: Commission Candidates Hugh Nicks and Richard Ranzau

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Sedgwick County Commission candidates Richard Ranzau and Hugh Nicks. These are Republicans vying for the District 4 nomination. Recorded June 8, 2018.

    The primary election is August 7, 2018. District 4 includes downtown and north-central Wichita, Park City, Maize, and Valley Center.

    Shownotes

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau joins Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks to discuss Sedgwick County government issues, including allegations of misconduct by a commission member and the possibility of a Tyson chicken plant. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 172, broadcast November 11, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • From Pachyderm: Why I Am a Republican

    From Pachyderm: Why I Am a Republican

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: A panel presentation on the topic “Why I Am a Republican.” Panelists, in order of their initial remarks, are Ben Sauceda, former Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn, Precinct Leader Linda Baker, and Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau. Todd Johnson is the moderator. This audio presentation was recorded on September 15, 2017.

    From left to right: Ben Sauceda, Karl Peterjohn, Linda Baker, Richard Ranzau, Todd Johnson
  • WichitaLiberty.TV Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

    WichitaLiberty.TV Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV. Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau joins Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn to discuss current issues in Sedgwick County government. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 150, broadcast May 7, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • For Sedgwick County Commission, too much debate

    For Sedgwick County Commission, too much debate

    By moving to end motions and debate, the Sedgwick County Commission isn’t effectively serving citizens and taxpayers.

    Yesterday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission offered an opportunity to learn how we can improve local government.

    The issue the commission was considering, significant in its own right, is not important to the following discussion. It’s the process that needs improvement.

    There was a proposed ordinance. Commissioner Jim Howell offered two amendments — really substitute motions — that altered the proposed ordinance. Each failed by votes of three to two.

    Howell had two more motions to offer. But Commissioner David Dennis moved a motion to end the offering of additional motions. In this vote the majority prevailed, and Howell was silenced. Commissioners voting to end debate were Chair Dave Unruh, Michael O’Donnell, and Dennis. Richard Ranzau and Howell opposed the motion to end debate.

    The county commission is not a deliberative body like a legislature. The county does not have committees like a legislature. I’m not advocating for the county to form committees, but here’s what is missing from the county process: There is no opportunity for interested parties — often lobbyists, but also regular people — to testify before a committee as legislation is being developed. There is no committee mark-up process in which the text of a bill is crafted and finalized. There is no committee vote that decides whether to recommend the bill to the entire legislative body.

    Some of this happens in Sedgwick County, of course, but mostly behind the scenes. There is the county staff meeting Tuesday morning, when the commissioners meet with staff in an informal setting. While this meeting is open to the public, there is rarely news coverage. (Hint to county staff: These meetings could easily be broadcast and archived on the internet without much cost or effort.)

    In a legislature, when a bill is considered by the entire body, there is usually an amendment process. They may be many amendments that require time to debate and consider. This process was mentioned by two commission members who have served in the Kansas legislature.

    But it seems a majority of Sedgwick County Commission members don’t care for this process.

    I understand why some commissioners wanted to end debate. Sometimes amendments to legislation create a moment where legislators have to cast a vote on an issue, often a finely-grained issue. Sometimes that vote is used as a campaign issue in future elections. Those votes may appear in compilations of legislative activity that reveal how legislators vote.

    But amendments and debate are part of the legislative process. Commissioner Howell had several amendments that he had prepared in advance. They were not off-the-cuff, spur-of-the-moment ideas. They were crafted to attempt to find a compromise that a majority of commissioners could accept.

    But a majority of Sedgwick County Commission members didn’t want that.

    Perhaps some commissioners where concerned about the meeting becoming lengthy. We see that from Wichita City Council members. They’re paid a part-time salary, so maybe there’s merit to their carping about long meetings.

    But Howell’s amendments took just a few minutes each to consider. And — this is highly relevant — the members of the Sedgwick County Commission are paid a handsome full-time salary. They should not object to the meeting lasting all day, if that’s what it takes to serve the citizens. And citizens were not well-served by the commission’s decision to silence one of its members.