Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sedgwick county government

  • The bridges of Sedgwick County are well marked

    327th Street West Bridge, Sedgwick County, KansasA small bridge west of Garden Plain in Sedgwick County, Kansas has not one, but two bronze plaques memorializing the circumstances of its creation.

    Even though they’re large and in some cases bright bronze, you might not notice them as you drive by. Slow down a little, and you’ll see that bridges in Sedgwick County boast handsome commemorative plaques.

    These plaques serve a useful purpose. They display essential information such as the name of the bridge, the year of its construction, the bridge’s inventory number, and the load standard to which the bridge was built.

    But the rest of the information, particularly the names of the county commissioners, is superfluous. It may even be harmful, as commissioners or other public officials who know their names will be prominently displayed on public works may call for design or aesthetic features beyond what is actually required.

    If you look at bridges built by other agencies, you’ll see they have much smaller markers that display only the essential information.

    The county public works department told me that the plaques are “subsidiary” pay items, meaning that the bridge contractor is required to provide the plaques, and there is no line item that details their cost. In answering my questions, the department contacted a local vendor who makes similar plaques, and they’re estimated to cost $500 each.

    29th Street North Bridge, Sedgwick CountyThe 29th Street Bridge is about as wide as it is long, yet it gets the full, two-plaque commemorative treatment.

    There are two plaques on all the bridges that I examined, for a cost of $1,000 per bridge. Since all bidders for a bridge project face roughly the same cost to provide these plaques, this is a cost passed directly to county taxpayers.

    Why does the county spend so much on plaques for bridges that, in some cases, are barely longer than they are wide? It’s a small matter — sort of like a few extra sprinkles on the icing of a cake — but these issues are symbolic of government’s attitude towards costs, and of some officials’ view of their own self-importance.

    Click on Sedgwick County Bridges to view more photos, or click on automatic slide show.

  • Wichita downtown arena parking problem

    This week the Wichita Eagle printed a letter submitted by Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn. The printed letter is quite a bit shorter than what Peterjohn submitted. The unabridged letter follows.

    The Wichita Eagle editorial written by Rhonda Holman on June 29, 2009 now claims that the new Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita lacks adequate parking. This is a major change by the Eagle editorial board’s position. I have repeatedly asked county staff about the available parking in and around this soon-to-open facility since I became a commissioner in January. I have been repeatedly told by county staff that adequate parking will be available when the Intrust Arena opens next year. The most recent public assurance I have received was only a few days ago.

    In 2004, while I led the opposition to the proposed downtown arena in my role as the executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, I repeatedly raised the parking availability issue. In 2004 the arena advocates claimed that arena parking would not become a problem and that the critics were wrong.

    Voters were repeatedly assured that there was plenty of parking that would be available downtown for the arena. The Wichita Eagle editorial page was among the leading advocates for this project and ignored opponents arguments concerning this $206 million (back then it was described as a $185 million) project. At that time there was only a general area for this new facility’s location so this argument lacked specificity. The exact location was unknown when voters cast their ballots.

    The Friday before the 2004 election I held a news conference pointing out the dimensions of the parking problem downtown in particular and the related location and capacity issues in great detail. At this news conference I provided a map of the Kansas Coliseum’s Britt Brown Arena and adjacent parking area available for comparison purposes with the existing 3,500 parking spaces for this 12,000 seat facility along I-135. I still have a few extra copies of this Britt Brown Arena aerial view. Arena proponents attended this 2004 news conference and claimed that the arena opponents concerns were invalid because of existing downtown parking. The Eagle editorial page repeatedly backed these arena proponents’ claims.

    The 2004 election is now political history. I want the Intrust Arena to be a success because this project has now become very important to the entire community. The reservations I expressed in 2004 have not disappeared just because of time. The decision to eliminate some of the one-way streets with two-way streets will not be an improvement in traffic flow in my opinion. There will be challenges for people to become comfortable with access into and out of this new facility while participating in high attendance events when the arena opens in a few months. To get beyond this challenge for any new facility, the county staff and parking consultant need to be correct about the adequacy of parking for the Intrust Arena and I believe are working to accomplish this objective.

  • Wichita Child Advocacy Center still in business, despite headline

    A headline in the Thursday August 6, 2009 Wichita Eagle is a little bit misleading: “Sedgwick County budget saves pavilions, denies site for abused kids.”

    Recognizing that the reporter who wrote the story probably didn’t write the headline, the fact is that the Sedgwick County Commission didn’t deny a site for the Child Advocacy Center. This Center is still operating. What happened at the meeting is that the county commission declined to grant a last-minute request for funding that would improve the Center’s office quarters.

    The request for funding was sprung on the commission at the last moment, with Wednesday’s meeting being the first time the commission received a formal request. Commissioner Karl Peterjohn told me that representatives from the Center didn’t attend public workshops or hearings, or participate in the budget process. They did have private discussions with some commissioners, including Peterjohn, but these discussions, in Peterjohn’s case, were general in nature and did not contain a specific request.

    Peterjohn pointed out that in light of the recent problems with Rainbows United and their bankruptcy filing, it is only prudent for the county to expect a business plan with specific details. That was not presented to the county commissioners.

    It’s important to note, Peterjohn said, that the Center’s current location is provided at no cost from state of Kansas, in the state office building downtown. The state even pays utilities.

    Testimony by Diana Schunn, Child Advocacy Center executive director, revealed that sometimes victims of crimes and perpetrators of crimes might have to use the same waiting room, which I can understand might be uncomfortable. But the center schedules cases so that victims and offenders in the same case aren’t there together.

    Schunn also mentioned that parking is a problem at the state office building. Questioning by Peterjohn revealed that people don’t want to pay a fee to park in a garage adjacent to the state office building. (That garage charges a flat rate of $3.00 to park all day.) While there is a visitors’ parking lot a block away, people don’t like to use it.

    The action the county commission took — or rather didn’t take — is far removed from denying a site for abused kids, as might be concluded if all one did was to read the Wichita Eagle headline. The Center is functioning, although in conditions that might be less than ideal.

    Related to this issue is the consideration that the county funded a pavilion used for, among other things, horse and dog shows. Some have asked: aren’t children more important?

    Yes, they are. That’s why I would have voted to let the horse and dog show people fully pay for their pavilions.

  • Kansas open records examined

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

    The spirit is willing but the law is weak

    Paul Soutar, Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

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

    The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) starts off well. “It is declared to be the public policy of the state that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Taxpayer Frustrations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wichita’s economic development is expensive, risky

    Sunday’s Wichita Eagle carried an op-ed piece written by Doug Stanley, vice chairman of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. As we might expect, he calls for more government involvement and management of economic development.

    Stanley makes the point that economic development organizations like GWEDC have customers, going so far as to cite the saying “the customer is king.”

    The idea of a customer, however, implies willing and voluntary participants on both sides of the transaction. While the companies that receive benefits from the taxpayer are willing participants, the taxpayers are not.

    Reading Stanley’s op-ed, you might conclude that Wichita has no industrial sites available. Conversations will several local developers indicate that the opposite is true: there are many industrial sites — some complete with existing buildings — available for immediate occupancy. It may be true that we don’t have the 800 acre site that Sedgwick County wants in an industrial park, but we have many sites that even very large companies could use.

    And it’s a rare company that could use even a small fraction of 800 acres.

    Critics might say that these sites, owned by private interests, won’t be as responsive to the needs of companies making site selections. But who do you trust to be more proactive and responsive: entrepreneurs looking for survival and profit, or government bureaucrats like those working for GWEDC?

    The problem, of course, is that private entrepreneurs don’t have government largess funded by taxpayers to offer.

    That leads to something that Stanlely doesn’t mention: Chasing jobs through economic development is expensive. A 1996 PBS report stated “The strategy of offering cheap land, cheap labor, and sizeable tax breaks has worked well for the southern and southeastern states, but it is getting expensive. In 1980, landing a new Nissan plant cost Tennessee $11,000 per job created. In 1985, recruiting the Saturn Corporation cost the state $26,000 per job. In 1992, it cost South Carolina more than $68,000 per job to bring in a BMW plant, and the estimates range from $150,000 to $200,000 per job for the Mercedes Benz plant in Alabama.”

    This arms race among states needs to stop. Last year Cessna used the fact of an offer from other states to extract subsidy from Kansas, Sedgwick County, and the City of Wichita. But how else could political leaders in Kansas react? It would have been political suicide to let one of Kansas’ most famous companies escape.

    Not that Cessna was planning to leave Wichita altogether. Instead, the decision was where to build a plant to produce a new airplane model. Since last year, Cessna has scrapped plans for the new plane. To its credit, Cessna is returning or not using the subsidies. But this is an indication of the risk that government assumes when engaging in economic development.

    Government has a dismal record of picking winners and losers. Instead of making decisions based on economic factors, decisions are made for political reasons. Those reasons often have little to do with sound economic prospects and more to do with the next campaign for re-election.

    Action at the federal level is needed to stop this wasteful competition between states. Then, all states can disband their economic development organizations and let business be business.

  • Sedgwick County seeks Kansas Coliseum developer

    Sedgwick County is looking to unload itself of responsibility for running the Kansas Coliseum and surrounding facilities such as the pavilions. It has issued a Request for Proposal to that effect.

    At a recent public hearing, many users of the pavilions pleaded with the county to keep them open for their events, such as horse shows. Other uses for the pavilions as mentioned in the RPF are “trade shows, flea markets, animal shows and events, and agricultural shows and events.”

    While the pavilions are great to have, it’s estimated that it costs the county about $580,000 per year to keep them open. That’s money that the taxpayers of the county have to pay in order for users of the pavilions to have a place for their horse and dog shows.

    The arguments of these people, of course, is totally self-serving. There’s no reason that the county should subsidize their venue. Except … government at all levels does exactly that, the new downtown Wichita arena being a prime example. But that’s not persuasive.

    A complicating factor is that some of the money collected by the sales tax for the building of the downtown arena went to make improvements at the pavilions.

    At a recent talk, County Commission member Dave Unruh said he’d be willing to sell the pavilions for $1 to a responsible party. That’s a great idea.

    You can read the county’s RFP, click on Sedgwick County Request for Proposals for Kansas Coliseum site.

  • Sedgwick County Manager Bill Buchanan should be dismissed

    Last year a political science professor, a keen observer of Kansas politics, told me that city or county managers shouldn’t be in office more than four or five years. After that, he said, they gain too much power. They know too much: all the secrets, where the bodies are buried. Think of J. Edgar Hoover and his reign.

    If managers are to serve their councils or commissions — instead of the other way around — sometimes a change needs to be made, just for the sake of change.

    This alone is enough reason for change in the Sedgwick County manager’s office after 18 years of manager Bill Buchanan.

    There are reasons specific to Mr. Buchanan, too, that argue for his dismissal.

    Two Sedgwick County commissioners have told me of frustrations with getting information from the county manager’s office or other county offices and departments. If legislators — that’s the role of the county commissioners — don’t have access to information, they can’t make good laws. They can’t do their job.

    Another reason to remove Buchanan is his opposition to the property tax reform measure Proposition K. Opposing reform allows him to make empty boasts as he did in his 2006 Wichita Eagle op-ed in support of a property tax increase: “Sedgwick County has worked through difficult times in the past eight years without raising the mill levy.” Rapidly rising assessments allow rising spending without tax increases. He knows that.

    Finally, there’s Buchanan’s relationship with the business community, which, according to his many prominent supporters, is the reason why the county needs him.

    There is a vigorous campaign led by the Wichita Chamber of Commerce‘s Bryan Derreberry in support of Buchanan. A commenter on a Wichita Eagle story referred to the “pro-business Buchanan.” Unfortunately, “pro-business” doesn’t mean “pro-capitalism.” In Wichita and Sedgwick County, many businessmen choose to operate not by competing in free markets, but by gaining favor at Wichita City Hall or the Sedgwick County Courthouse. This favor comes in the form of TIF districts, industrial revenue bonds, STAR bonds, forgivable loans, subsidy, outright grants, historic and other tax credits, and other incentives and programs. While much of this originates in Wichita City Hall, the county approves of most of it, and in some cases, gives its explicit or implicit consent or manages the program.

    Derreberry and his chamber are for all of these programs that enrich business at the expense of consumers, taxpayers, and free market competition. That’s why the chamber opposed Commissioner Karl Peterjohn last year in his bid for election. Its political action committee spent a huge sum — nearly half of its entire political budget — in favor of Peterjohn’s opponent.

    By all accounts and by his own words, Mr. Buchanan favors all this government interventionism.

    For these reasons, the Sedgwick County Commission should dismiss their county manager.

  • Sedgwick County Commissioner Unruh to speak

    At this Friday’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Sedgwick County Commissioner Dave Unruh will speak.

    Unruh represents the first district, which covers much of east and northeast Wichita, and east and northeast portions of the county.

    He was first elected in 2002, and he was re-elected in 2006. He has already filed to be a candidate for his current office in next year’s August primary. So far no other Republican candidates have filed.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.

  • Sedgwick County checkbook now open

    Those interested in the finances and spending of Sedgwick County now have more information available.

    The county checkbook website is at Sedgwick County checkbook. I’ve looked at it, and like a lot of these things, it takes a little practice and experimentation to find what you want.

    This marks a big step forward in Sedgwick County government transparency. Chris Chronis, Chief Financial Officer for the county, is to be commended.

    Other things the county does well is promptly posting the video and review of commission meetings. It’s 3:45 pm now, and already these items for this morning’s commission meeting are available. The minutes of the commission meetings, which are a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, take longer to prepare. As of now, the latest meeting for which minutes are available is the June 3, 2009 meeting.

    The next step the county could easily take is to post the “agenda packet” or “green sheets” for commission meetings. This is the detailed information about the items to be considered at the meeting. This packet can be hundreds of pages long. The City of Wichita does a good job — maybe too good– in this regard, as this week’s packet was 652 pages.

    For now, the county commission agenda packets are available only in printed form, which means a trip to the courthouse or a delay for mailing.

    Reporting in the Wichita Eagle is at You can view Sedgwick County’s checkbook online.