Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sedgwick county government

  • Sedgwick County Republican Party: democracy in action?

    I received this article from a local Republican activist who, obviously, isn’t satisfied with the way Fourth District Committee Delegates and Alternates are selected. As a committeeman myself, I have to say I agree. Last month the county party met to elect new officials: chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, and treasurer. There was one slate of candidates, and any idea of presenting alternative candidates was strongly discouraged.

    When I saw on the agenda that delegates would be elected, I passed a note to a friend of mine and asked if he would submit my name in nomination for delegate. Then I realized that the slate of delegates and alternates was pre-selected. The election was pro forma.

    I agree with this writer that delegates and county party officers should be selected from the ranks of elected committeeman and committeewomen.

    Who runs the Republican Party in Sedgwick County? On the surface a novice would say that the voters elect precinct committeemen and committeewomen. Then it would make sense that they get together and elect their executive committee from those who were elected by the voters … right? Okay, then they would also elect the Fourth District Committee Delegates and Alternates to represent the Republican voters at the state level from those elected by the voters. Keep in mind that we elect over 300 committee representatives every two years so there is definitely a large group to chose from.

    SO … I ask why is it that of the current Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, only the Chair is an elected Precinct Committeeman?

    ALSO … Why is it that out of 40 Delegates, 17 are not 2008 Precinct committee elected?

    PLUS … Of the 40 Alternates, 16 are not 2008 Precinct committee elected?

    AND … Why were people who are duly elected precinct committee people that have been delegates in the past taken off?

    OH YEA … it is because a few people in a back room somewhere created a slate based on some God only knows criteria and presented it to the Precinct Committeemen and women as a SLATE to vote on.

    So much for democracy and so much for running for office. Obviously the Republican positions of power are based on who you know and not on who the voters elected.

  • Sedgwick County: please don’t ratify Wichita’s disrespect of citizens

    Remarks delivered at the December 17, 2008 meeting of the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners.

    I’m here today to ask this commission to not approve the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district. The reason I ask this of you is for reasons of good and open government, something I’m sure we can agree that all citizens are in favor of.

    There was a defect in the public hearing that the Wichita City Council held on December 2, 2008 regarding this matter. The defect in the public hearing is not the fault of this commission. That blame lies across the street at Wichita city hall.

    The undisputed facts are that the City of Wichita added a large amount of spending to the project plan less than 24 hours before the public hearing. Besides greatly increasing the size of the project, this additional spending is of a different character. Citizens, news media, and even at least one council member were not aware of this change until it was announced at the public hearing.

    Besides being disrespectful to citizens, there may very well be a legal problem with the way the City of Wichita conducted the public hearing. Kansas Statute 12-1772 requires that if a substantial change is made to the project plan, there must be another public hearing after publication of notice.

    Does roughly doubling the budget of a plan qualify as a substantial change? Does adding a new type of project, one that wasn’t mentioned in the notice of the public hearing qualify as a substantial change? Yes. I believe these are substantial changes.

    Wichita interim city manager Scott Moore admits there were problems with the public hearing. Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle recognizes them, too. And Randy Brown’s description of changes to the public hearing having been “sneaked onto the Wichita City Council’s Tuesday agenda, essentially under cover of Monday evening’s darkness” accurately captures the nature of what the City of Wichita did.

    But what the City of Wichita will not do is accept the consequence of its actions.

    A volunteer citizen watchdog like me can’t afford to file a lawsuit against the city to force them to hold a proper public hearing. The city has nearly unlimited means to defend itself. Not lost on me is the irony that my own tax dollars would be used in a legal fight against me.

    This commission has the power to stand up for good government. Please don’t consent to what’s been termed an “aggravated assault on the spirit” of the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Please vote against the downtown arena TIF and ask the City of Wichita to hold a proper public hearing.

  • Wichita and Sedgwick County Agenda Deadlines Are Too Short

    Both the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County have policies that limit citizens’ ability to address these bodies on timely matters. Each body requires, effectively, at least one week notice to appear on the public agenda. That’s the part of the meeting where citizens can speak about any topic, not just those matters that are being considered that day.

    Here’s an example of how these restrictive deadlines work against citizens. On December 2, John Todd and I spoke at the Wichita city council meeting, as part of a public hearing. As shown in the posts Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch and Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing, the public hearing was defective. Further, there’s a time factor involved, in that the city council set in motion a process that must be resolved within 30 days. With the upcoming holidays, time is tight.

    So John called the Wichita city clerk, but we can’t get on the agenda for the next city council meeting. By the time we can get on the agenda, it’s nearly too late for the council to take the action we’d like to ask of them.

    A reasonable policy is this: When something happens in a meeting one week, there should be time for citizens to get on the public agenda for the next meeting.

    The policy of the Wichita City Council is “Members of the public desiring to present matters to the council on the public agenda must submit a request in writing to the office of the city manager prior to twelve noon on the Tuesday preceding the council meeting.”

    For Sedgwick County, I wasn’t able to find a policy on its website, but while watching today’s commission meeting on television, chairman Winters asked the public to contact the county manager’s office “at least a week or ten days before our meeting” if they wanted to address the commission.

    Note: when an item is on the agenda, citizens usually get to speak about the item. The public agenda is where citizens can speak about items that may or may not be on the meeting’s agenda.

  • Letters to Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission Regarding Downtown Wichita TIF District

    John Todd has prepared letters that we hope will influence local governments regarding the downtown Wichita TIF district. One, to the Wichita City Council, asks them to conduct a proper public hearing. A second letter to the Sedgwick County Commissioners asks them to not consider passing this TIF district until Wichita conducts a proper public hearing. A third is a letter to the Wichita Eagle explaining citizens’ concerns.

    If you’d like to sign these letters, please contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net. Here’s the one to the Wichita City Council:

    Mayor Carl Brewer
    Wichita City Council Members
    Wichita City Hall
    Wichita, Kansas

    Subject: Citizens request for a new and open City Council public hearing before implementing the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    The December 2, 2008 public hearing as conducted by the Wichita City Council concerning the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District was not a true and meaningful public hearing. Therefore, we ask that you withdraw the proposal until a proper public hearing can be held before the City Council. This issue needs to be sent to the District Advisory Boards (DAB) for their review. Wichita citizens in general and DAB boards both need all the details and a complete cost analysis for this TIF district scheme.

    Let me refer you to Randy Brown’s letter in the Eagle (see “Reopen TIF issue” Dec. 7), referring to Bob Weeks’ letter in the Eagle (see “TIF public hearing was bait and switch” Dec. 5) that hit the nail on the head by saying, “conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy.” Brown further states, “… we (the people) had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue. The Wichita officials involved should publicly apologize, and the issue should be reopened. And this time, the public should be properly notified.”

    The citizens of this community deserve open, honest, and transparent government. The Wichita City Council needs to hold a new and open public hearing on this issue before proceeding with the implementation of this project.

  • Wichita TIF public hearing was bait and switch

    This appeared in today’s Wichita Eagle.

    On Tuesday December 2, 2008, the Wichita City Council held a public hearing on the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district. As someone with an interest in this matter, I watched the city’s website for the appearance of the agenda report for this meeting. This document, also known as the “green sheets” and often several hundred pages in length, contains background information on items appearing on the meeting’s agenda.

    At around 11:30 am Monday, the day before the meeting, I saw that the agenda report was available. I download it and printed the few pages of interest to me.

    At the meeting Tuesday morning, I was surprised to hear council member Jim Skelton expressed his dismay that a change to the TIF plan wasn’t included in the material he printed and took home to read. This change, an addition of up to $10,000,000 in spending on parking, is material to the project. It’s also controversial, and if the public had known of this plan, I’m sure that many speakers would have attended the public hearing.

    But the public didn’t have much notice of this controversial change to the plan. Inspection of the agenda report document — the version that contains the parking proposal — reveals that it was created at 4:30 pm on Monday. I don’t know how much longer after that it took to be placed on the city’s website. But we can conclude that citizens — and at least one city council member — didn’t have much time to discuss and debate the desirability of this parking plan.

    The news media didn’t have time, either. Reporting in the Wichita Eagle on Monday and Tuesday didn’t mention the addition of the money for parking.

    This last-minute change to the TIF plan tells us a few things. First, it reveals that the downtown arena TIF plan is a work in progress, with major components added on-the-fly just a few days before the meeting. That alone gives us reason to doubt its wisdom. Citizens should demand that the plan be withdrawn until we have sufficient time to discuss and deliberate matters as important as this. What happened on Tuesday doesn’t qualify as a meaningful public hearing on the actual plan. A better description is political bait and switch.

    Second, when the business of democracy is conducted like this, citizens lose respect for both the government officials involved and the system itself. Instead of openness and transparency in government, we have citizens and, apparently, even elected officials shut out of the process.

    Third, important questions arise: Why was the addition of the parking plan not made public until the eleventh hour? Was this done intentionally, so that opponents would not have time to prepare, or to even make arrangements to attend the meeting? Or was it simple incompetence and lack of care?

    The officials involved — council members Jeff Longwell and Lavonta Williams, who negotiated the addition of the parking with county commissioners; Allen Bell, who is Wichita’s director of urban development; and Mayor Carl Brewer — need to answer to the citizens of Wichita as to why this important business was conducted in this haphazard manner that disrespects citizen involvement.

    Additional coverage:
    Wichita TIF Districts Mean Central Government Planning
    Downtown Wichita Arena TIF District Testimony
    Jim Skelton is Frustrated
    Downtown Wichita Arena TIF District Still a Bad Idea
    Wichita Mayor and City Council Prefer to Work Out of Media Spotlight
    Wichita’s Naysayers Are Saying Yes to Liberty
    Tiff over Wichita TIFs
    Downtown Wichita Arena TIF District
    Do Wichita TIF Districts Create Value?
    Wichita City Council’s Misunderstanding of Tax Increment Financing
    Tax Increment Financing in Wichita Benefits Few
    Tax Increment Financing in Iowa

  • Sedgwick County Commission Urged to Veto Wichita Arena TIF District

    From Darrell Leffew.

    The Wichita City Council voted December 2nd. to approve the TIF District for the Arena area, including a large sum for parking. As a voter and taxpayer in the County and Wichita, I respectfully request each of you on the Board of County Commission to veto that TIF.

    The Arena sales tax collections to build the project included parking expenditures. To use a TIF for more funding is double taxation. I say that for this reason: as the property taxes increase in the TIF district to pay back the City, business owners paying those increases always pass the cost on to their customers. While not directly a “tax”, it has the same effect. And this continued effort to support a downtown while ignoring the business owners elsewhere creates distrust, anger and unhappy voters.

    We, the consumer, will continue paying. Sure we have a choice as to whether we spend money at those businesses. But should we choose to NOT trade there, we actually are doing the opposite of what the TIFs were intended for.

    I am opposed to this TIF. And as member of District Advisory Board V, I have received more than three dozen calls from citizens since noon Tuesday who want a veto from our County Commission.

    I know the parking associated with the Arena is a tough issue. I read the most recent study. And I have been an opponent of the Arena. But it is being built. I therefore hope is is the most successful arena ever built. Taxing an overtaxed community during a recession is bad timing, bad government and bad politics. Hold a public hearing on the matter. Ask, no demand, the voters get involved in your process. Isn’t that how our Representative form of government is supposed to work?

    Again, I and many others who have voiced concern to me, urge you to veto that TIF.

  • Jim Skelton is Frustrated

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, council member Jim Skelton expressed his frustration with last-minute additions to the plan for the Center City South Redevelopment tax increment financing (TIF) District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    The problem is two-fold: First, when plans change at the last minute, there is no time for any debate or discussion about the changes. Citizens, and even newspaper reporters, don’t have time to prepare. Second, when a major project — one costing many millions and requiring multi-year commitments by local governments — is apparently planned on the fly, it doesn’t inspire much confidence in the people in charge.

  • Wichita Chamber of Commerce values

    Here’s a message that Bryan Derreberry, president of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, sent to Chamber members. Note that this message doesn’t mention the role its political action committee played in the third Sedgwick County Commission district. In that race, the PAC spent some $19,000 of its $48,000 in an effort to elect Goddard mayor Marcey Gregory. Her opponent, longtime taxpayer advocate Karl Peterjohn, is just the type of candidate you’d expect chambers of commerce to support.

    But that’s changed. Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal on February 10, 2007 wrote this: “In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper.”

    Mr. Derreberry’s letter mentions “pro-business values.” At one time this meant something approaching free-market values. But now, Ronald Reagan’s prediction is being fulfilled here in Wichita: “What is euphemistically called government-corporate ‘partnership’ is just government coercion, political favoritism, collectivist industrial policy, and old-fashioned federal boondoggles nicely wrapped up in a bright-colored ribbon. It doesn’t work.”

    November 18, 2008
    Dear Chamber Members:

    This election cycle was a resounding success for the candidates supported by the Wichita Area Business Political Action Committee (WABPAC) as we raised more than $48,000 to support pro-business state and local candidates. The Chamber’s political action committee identified and supported 39 state legislative candidates and three Sedgwick County Commissioner candidates winning 36 of the 39 races in which WABPAC was involved (93% elected).

    The litmus test for the PAC’s engagement and support was whether a candidate had demonstrated an ability to listen and work with the business community to assure that your company, or organization, had the most competitive environment possible in which to excel. WABPAC’s Board of Trustees wants to thank every Chamber member who reviewed the PAC’s support recommendations and voted accordingly. The reason behind this appreciation is that the Chamber’s collective voice has its greatest impact when business members engage themselves in the election process and elect candidates who embrace pro-business values and understand the challenges you face daily.

    A strong, collective pro-business vote is also an outstanding way to support incumbent state legislators and local elected officials who have successfully advanced our region’s top priorities. Bottom line – we need to effectively support the business-attuned elected officials who support us. Our South Central Kansas state legislative delegation has been an adept and courageous partner in advancing our metro area’s top policy and program goals. Your combined voice, in supporting the PAC and re-electing a majority of this delegation, assures the return of legislators to Topeka willing to champion our most important business priorities.

    Respectfully,
    Bryan Derreberry

  • Johnson County Republicans Enforce Party Discipline

    Kansas Liberty, in the post JoCo GOP battle exposes party weaknesses reports on the recent Johnson County Republican Party leadership position elections. Unlike the same event in Sedgwick County, where dissent was discouraged (see Sedgwick County Republicans, Not All United), there was choice available to Republicans Kansas’ most populous county.

    What also happened is that the Johnson County party suspended 15 precinct leaders (committeeman and committeewomen, presumably) for supporting and donating money to Democratic candidates who were running against Republicans. Tough crowd up there! We had a similar situation in Sedgwick County, where nominally Republican groups spent some $19,000 in an effort to elect a Democrat over Republican Karl Peterjohn to the Sedgwick County Commission. So far there hasn’t been similar outrage expressed here.