Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sedgwick county government

  • Sunshine Review completes county effort nationwide

    Sunshine Review, a site devoted to government transparency, openness and accountability at the state and local level, has competed an effort to evaluate all United States counties on their transparency.

    The site’s transparency checklist explains the criteria used to determine the openness of a governmental body. The page county websites supplies more detail.

    To view the information for your county, start by clicking on Sunshine Review. You can then find your county by click on a map of the states. Or, you could use the search feature.

    How does Sedgwick County do? Not very well. Based on Sunshine Review’s evaluation: “The website does not have information on committee meetings, building permits, zoning information, audits, contracts, lobbying, or tax breakdowns.”

  • On the wall of Karl Peterjohn’s office

    Earlier this week I stopped by the Sedgwick County Courthouse to visit with newly-elected commissioner Karl Peterjohn. Next month I’ll have a feature about Peterjohn’s first few months in office. Until then, here’s a photograph I took of a cartoon that hangs on the wall of his office (click to view a larger version):

    Karl Peterjohn cartoon by Richard Crowson 1996

  • Wichita downtown arena contract seems to require Sedgwick County approval

    Sedgwick County, owner of the Intrust Bank Arena (the downtown Wichita arena), has a five-year contract with SMG that outsources the management of the arena.

    Yesterday, SMG announced a 10.5 year lease with the Wichita Thunder hockey team. Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, and SMG is resisting their release, as explained in Wichita Eagle reporting referred to in my post Wichita downtown arena open records failure.

    But this much is clear: SMG has committed to a contract that lasts longer than their contract with the county.

    Sedgwick County could choose to renew SMG’s contract, of course. The contract also contains a provision where if the county receives at least $1,700,000 from the profit sharing agreement with SMG, the contract automatically renews.

    But it seems like SMG is getting a little ahead of itself.

    It also appears that the lease contract SMG made with the Thunder requires approval by Sedgwick County.

    The management agreement between Sedgwick County and SMG grants authority to SMG to negotiate contracts without county approval, but there is an exception: “… if any such license, agreement, commitment or contract other than those involving the license, lease or rental of the Facility in the ordinary course has a term that extends beyond the remaining Management Term or, if this Agreement has been renewed, the Renewal Term, such license, agreement, commitment or contract must prior thereto be approved in writing by the County (which approval shall be at the County’s sole discretion, not to be unreasonably withheld) …”

    (The management term referred to is five years.)

    So it seems that this contract, extending beyond the management term as it does, is subject to Sedgwick County approval.

    There’s more from the SMG-Sedgwick County agreement: “SMG and the County will have joint approval rights (which approval right shall be at each party’s sole discretion, not to be unreasonably withheld) for all major revenue streams that can impact the profitability of any Facility, including ticketing, sponsorships, food and beverage, and tenant leases with terms of one year or greater.”

    The Thunder is certainly a major revenue stream for the arena. In fact, they’re the anchor tenant. The lease, at 10.5 years, is much longer than the one year mentioned.

    So there’s another clause of the contract that seems to indicate that Sedgwick County has approval rights for this lease agreement.

    Here’s a question: can Sedgwick County give its approval to a contract that SMG will not let the county see?

  • Wichita downtown arena open records failure

    Yesterday, the company that manages the Intrust Bank Arena (the downtown Wichita arena) announced a lease with the arena’s flagship tenant, the Wichita Thunder hockey team. But we don’t know the details of the lease. Unbelievably, some Sedgwick County Commissioners and managers are okay with that.

    The Wichita Eagle article Details of Intrust Bank Arena contract with Thunder are a secret reports the details.

    I believe that the Eagle will be successful in pursuing a copy of the lease agreement from SMG (the company managing the arena for Sedgwick County) under the Kansas Open Records Act. Here’s why:

    The KORA states that “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    Although immediately next comes an exception, excluding “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.”

    I believe the exception is meant to prevent a company who, say, sells pencils to the county from being subject to KORA.

    But the relationship between SMG and the county is different. Sedgwick County has outsourced the management of the arena to SMG. The county is paying SMG, too. According to the contract, $8,000 per month at this time.

    The county and SMG have a broad nondisclosure agreement in their contract, although this can’t override the KORA.

    Besides the legalities of this, SMG and Sedgwick County need to find a way where this lease agreement can be made available to the public. I recently obtained a copy of the existing lease agreement between the Thunder and the county in anticipation of comparing it with the new agreement, the one shrouded in secrecy.

    If SMG decides to keep this contract secret, it will be a public relations disaster for them.

    It’s also a strike against the Sedgwick County managers who negotiated the contract with SMG that contains this provision, and against the commissioners who voted for it. Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton seems to be the prime apologist for the secret contract.

    Let’s hope that SMG changes their mind soon and releases the contract.

  • Cornejo & Sons campaign contributions history

    A recent Wichita Eagle news story jogged readers’ memories about the company that’s the target of the story, Cornejo & Sons, Inc., and their campaign contributions a few years back. The company asked some of its employees to make campaign contributions, and then the employees were reimbursed. That’s illegal.

    A Wichita Eagle story from April 27, 2003 states: “A former administrative assistant for the Cornejo & Sons construction firm says company executives sought campaign donations from employees and then walked around the office illegally reimbursing workers with stacks of $50 and $100 bills.”

    In this story, Ron Cornejo, the company president, denied the making the reimbursements.

    But two days later the Eagle reported: “The president of Cornejo & Sons admitted Monday that the construction firm reimbursed employees who donated money to pro-landfill candidates for Wichita mayor and Sedgwick County Commission — a practice that violates state law. Company president Ron Cornejo issued a statement saying that he and his company are cooperating with state ethics investigators and gathering data on the contributions that were made by the employees in 2002 and 2003.”

    The next day Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston announced the launching of a criminal investigation.

    On August 21, 2003, according to Eagle reporting, “the state ethics commission fined Wichita-based Cornejo & Sons Inc. $15,000.” An Eagle editorial called this “a slap on the wrist.”

    All candidates who received the money — a mix of Wichita mayoral, city council, and Sedgwick county commission candidates, one still in office — were cleared of any wrongdoing by the ethics commission. I couldn’t find any news stories about the result of the DA’s investigation, so I inquired at the office. But it appears that no charges were ever filed.

    It’s thought that the contributions were supporting Cornejo’s substantial contracts with the City of Wichita, and also the company’s effort to gain approval to build a landfill near Furley. The construction landfill that’s the subject of the recent Eagle article wasn’t mentioned as the motivating factor for these contributions.

  • Wichita downtown arena costs increases start

    The Intrust Bank Arena, better known as the downtown Wichita arena, is adding $2 to the cost of a ticket for hockey games once the arena opens. (Cost of tickets at Intrust Bank Arena increased by facility fee, March 5, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

    We shouldn’t be surprised at this. Expect more price increases.

    Some of the comments left by readers should remind us of the issues surrounding this arena.

    “Get over it, you lost the arena vote” wrote one person. I hate it when democracy produces winners and losers. Especially when we’re quarreling over an entertainment facility.

    “That’s great! The more people who come downtown, the better.” I wonder what people who have invested in areas other than downtown think when government builds and/or subsidizes attractions that compete with their bars, restaurants, and other businesses?

  • Wichita Eagle’s GWEDC board membership in perspective

    What is the role in public affairs of a newspaper like the Wichita Eagle? Can it wear more than one hat — making news as well as covering it?

    This is not a hypothetical question.

    Consider that Pam Siddall, president and publisher of the Wichita Eagle is a member of the steering council of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, an important, partially tax-funded board, that plays a significant role in Wichita.

    Should this make any difference to you?

    When the Eagle’s editorial board grants the president of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition space on its pages, should readers be aware of this connection? (Vicki Pratt Gerbino: Invest in recruiting, preserving area jobs, February 15, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

    When the Eagle’s editorial blog writes a fawning post titled GWEDC crucial to attracting, retaining jobs, should readers be aware of this connection?

    When Eagle reporters write a story that can be characterized as critical of anyone who questions the need for the GWEDC — the story starts with “The hard-won balance between the city, county and business leaders over economic development is wobbling a bit after some comments last week.” — should readers be aware of this connection? (See Sedgwick County commissioners question economic development funding, February 17, 2009 Wichita Eagle.)

    The nature of the connection is that the Eagle is an “Investor” in the GWEDC, which means they contributed at least $5,000, at least some in the form of advertising. The Wichita Business Journal is also in the Investor class.

    I asked the heads of the two organizations involved — Vicki Pratt Gerbino, president of the GWEDC, and Pam Siddall, publisher of the Wichita Eagle — if they thought there was potential for conflict of interest when a news organization covers an entity it has made contributions to. Ms. Gerbino said no, there’s no conflict of interest. Ms. Siddall said the same, citing the separate news and business functions at the Eagle.

    In conversations I’ve had in the past with a few Eagle reporters, they’ve cited the “wall of separation” between the main functions of a newspaper, which are news, editorial, and the business of the newspaper.

    But this wall may not be as tall and wide as it seems. In an excerpt from Knightfall: Knight Ridder and How the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism Is Putting Democracy At Risk, Davis Merritt, former editor of the Eagle writes “The notion of strict separation between the business and journalism functions of newspapers is relatively recent in terms of the whole of American newspaper history, and judging by current practice, it may be only a passing phase.”

    It is difficult for an outsider to be able to know if the Eagle’s news and editorial judgments are influenced by its relationship with the GWEDC. That’s why people and organizations are often advised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Could the GWEDC survive without the publisher of the Eagle on its steering committee and without the Eagle’s financial contribution? I think they could. Then, without this connection, readers of the Eagle wouldn’t have to worry so much about the Eagle’s news and editorial independence.

  • Sedgwick County Courthouse Message

    Sedgwick County Courthouse, Wichita, Kansas

    The people of Sedgwick County may drive by or enter their courthouse without seeing and contemplating the message above its doors.

    Here’s a photograph I took. The message reads: “Free and independent courts for a free and independent people.”

  • Who Makes the Money in Sedgwick County?

    Here’s a story sent to me by a friend.

    A local, newly elected official went to his church late in 2008 in Sedgwick County to pick up some family members. When he went in, he saw two deputy sheriffs and a third person at the information desk in the church’s atrium. This official knew one of the deputies and stopped to say hello.

    The official was introduced by the deputy to the second deputy as well as told that the third person there also worked for county government. The elected official asked, “what part of the county do you work for?” to the third person who was working on a laptop computer.

    “I work for the money making part,” the third person with the computer said.

    “Oh, what part of the county treasurer’s office do you work in?” the elected official asked.

    “I don’t work for the treasurer,” the third person behind the information desk said while adding a contemptuous glance, “I work for the appraiser.”

    This story indicates that the real challenge in Kansas is soaring tax appraisals. Since the real estate boom that has driven appraisals has turned into a “bust” these values should not be increasing. The 2009 appraisals are due in March. Property prices are declining nationally. This should be reflected in the annual appraisals. Stay tuned to see.