Voice For Liberty

Tag: Susan Wagle

  • Kansas committee asks if KBA audit did enough to expose problems

    By Bob Weeks, Special to KansasWatchdog.org

    Members of the joint Commerce and Economic Development Committees expressed concern that a forensic audit of the Kansas Bioscience Authority was not broad enough and that deliberate deletion of data from a KBA computer left questions unanswered.

    On Wedesday James Snyder, managing partner for BKD’s Forensics and Valuation Services, told the committee that while his firm was hired and paid by KBA, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s administration was heavily involved. Secretary of Agriculture Dale Rodman served as the main contact for the Brownback Administration, although Caleb Stegall, the governor’s chief lawyer, and Steve Anderson, the Budget Director, also participated.

    Snyder told the committee the audit process was designed to avoid a situation where after the final report was released, people would ask why certain facts were not considered or covered. “This process was specifically designed to avoid that, and it worked pretty well,” he said.

    The Kansas Legislature created the KBA in 2004 and gave it $581 million to bring bioscience research and jobs to Kansas. KBA has been under fire for expenses and salaries paid to top executives and for giving grants to fund projects out of state.

    Any disputes about the report’s contents were ironed out by January, but on Sunday, the day before the report was to be released, Rodman raised a difference of opinion over a possible conflict of interest involving former KBA board member Angela Kreps. Snyder characterized this as the only difference of opinion, and that it was a narrow and minor one.

    Committee chair, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, recognized that BKD’s position was “difficult,” as the firm was hired and paid by KBA, but it was also in frequent communication with the Brownback Administration. Snyder said the administration was involved in an oversight role, and also in defining the scope of the audit.

    Senator Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, expressed concern over possible deletion of computer files and that BKD could only “dive into that which you had, that you were provided.” BKD’s timeline of the audit showed that KBA leadership was apprised of an audit on March 10th, 2011. The next day CEO Tom Thornton accessed a computer hard drive on KBA’s network. The drive was accessible to only four people and held personnel records and confidential company information.

    BKD was hired on April 11th, a fact Masterson said he found “fascinating” because KBA used a 30-day rolling backup scheme that would not have retained files deleted on or before March 10. The time lag from March 11th to April 11th means that if information was deleted from the J-Drive, it was not available to the BKD audit team.

    The timing of this is “highly suspect,” Masterson said.

    Snyder said the audit team had access to much information and that BKD received everything they asked for, but Masterson pointed out that we don’t know what might have been missing. Thornton’s personal laptop computer was erased or “wiped” days after the audit was called for in a way that made it impossible for the computer forensic team to recover the deleted data.

    Snyder said that the committee should have high confidence in the audit’s findings and that the number of people and computers the team had access to was in many cases “extraordinary.” He also said that core KBA business records had integrity and there was no reason to suspect these systems had been compromised.

    Masterson quoted from page 133 of the audit report: “Our analysis found 301 payments without a contract, including 102 payments that violated KBA’s Contract Policy. The total contract cost involved totaled $1,219,271.81 in payments without a contract, including $571,828.20 in payments which violated Contract Policy.”

    Masterson noted that there’s no indication anything was technically illegal, but that the purview of the committee went beyond that. “Why do we put policies in place? It’s so that we can show best practice, best stewardship. You have shown over 300 violations of policy … I don’t know how we can paint this in the light that this is instilling confidence, and that it is clearing the air.”

    Masterson also said that the best case seems to be that there was unethical management combined with inadequate oversight. He said there is the possibility of a coordinated cover up of behavior that could potentially be illegal.

    Snyder answered that over time they observed “increasing sophistication” of board participation and compliance with procedures and that there had also been changes initiated by the board that offered protection.

    Wagle said she received faxes from KBA employees expressing concern that the Senate Commerce Committee received altered documents. “It became very apparent that we could not rely on the information we were receiving,” she said. She asked Snyder if it was possible that documents were altered or erased so BKD did not see them.

    Snyder said that although one expense report was altered, there was no indication of a “systematic issue” of alterations or erasures.

    Wagle and Snyder disagreed over the extent of BKD’s contact with Wagle contending that it did not constitute an “interview” as claimed in the audit report.

    Democratic Senator Tom Holland asked Snyder two questions relating to whether KBA has business policies and procedures in place to effectively run the organization, and has KBA consistently followed these? Snyder answered yes, with very few exceptions. “We found a very high level of compliance.”

    Republican Senator Chris Steineger of Kansas City asked a series of questions regarding the mission of the KBA, which is, according to KBA “advancing Kansas’ leadership in bioscience” as well as creating investment and jobs in Kansas. Steineger expressed concern that much of KBA’s funding is spent on overhead, such as lawyers, architects, office buildings, travel, and dining.

    Steineger distributed a series of calculations based on KBA data in the audit that he said reveals that KBA made $265 million in commitments resulting in 1,347 jobs for a cost of $196,808 per job created.

    Steineger showed that removing the largest company from the mix — Quintiles, which created 1,000 jobs for a KBA contribution of $3.5 million — the remaining jobs cost more than $750,000 each.

    Senator Jeff Longbine, an Emporia Republican, mentioned that there had been criticism of the KBA for insider activities among board members, conflicts of interest, cronyism, and fraud and asked Snyder if these accusations were true. Snyder said these generalized accusations were not true, although there was one instance where there was “some technical violation of a conflict of interest rule.” He said that KBA is not “fraught with fraud or self-dealing.”

    The audit report also noted that KBA made regular use of executive sessions not open to the public and that, “No notes or recordings are made of Executive Sessions. This is a common business practice. Therefore, information discussed in Executive Session was not available for BKD’s review and could not be considered with regard to the findings of this report.”

    In response to another question, Snyder said that no changes were recommended to the Kansas Economic Growth Act, the legislation that created the KBA. There were some recommendations to KBA board policies and procedures.

    Wagle also noted that conflict of interest rules don’t really resolve conflicts. Generally, if KBA board members disclose that they have a conflict of interest — such as a company they have financial ties to getting a grant — they can refrain from voting to satisfy the rules. “To me, I don’t know if it’s okay with the people of Kansas,” Wagle said.

    The joint hearing will continue tomorrow with a presentation from Rodman.

    This article originally appeared on Kansas Watchdog.

  • Kansas senate debate centers on free speech, transparency

    This afternoon the Kansas Senate debated for about 90 minutes on an amendment that would require more disclosure for “issue ads” or communications in favor of candidates by third parties.

    Senator Terrie Huntington, a Republican from Fairway, introduced the amendment to Senate Substitute for HB 2079. Its language, apparently identical to Senate Bill 418, states: “Any person who spends or contracts to spend an amount of $500 or more per calendar year for any electioneering communication” must file reports that disclose the identity of the donor and the amount of the contribution.

    At one point in the debate, Senator Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, asked Huntington why it is the government’s business who makes a contribution? Huntington replied the she didn’t know why the government has campaign finance laws, except that she has to file reports of her contributors.

    Bruce also objected to what he called “loose language” in the bill. Several times he asked about the use of the word “specifically,” saying that the bill was vague in who would be required to disclose contributions. He suggested that churches might have to disclose their donors if this amendment becomes law.

    Senator Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who is the long-time minority leader of the Senate, said that this amendment applies only to those who contribute over $500 for the purpose of electioneering communication. He added that this type of communication does not include communications made by membership organizations solely to their members. That would not be covered by this amendment, he said.

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, made a case for anonymous free speech based on the Constitution. People should be allowed to state an opinion, she said. She referred to a series of “Snoop dog” ads used in recent elections that were, she said, traced back to abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. Noting that Tiller was murdered last year, she said “somebody got upset, and he was murdered. And that’s why we protect free speech, and that’s why we allow for anonymous free speech.”

    Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler in southwest Kansas, raised the issue of how this amendment would affect unions and their communications. Huntington said that unions are not formed for the express purpose of campaign electioneering.

    Hensley said that unions typically form political action committees, which must disclose their contributors. If they don’t do that, they are treated the same as corporations.

    Huelskamp raised the question what if an organization sends out a communication to their members, but someone else — not a member — inadvertently receives the communication? This is important, as the language of the amendment says that communication solely to members is not covered. Huntington did not seem to have a satisfactory answer to this.

    What about editorials, Huelskamp asked? Huntington said that editorials printed in newspapers not controlled by the candidate are not covered by the proposed amendment. Huntington said that newspaper editorials are not written for the purposes of electioneering, which Huelskamp disputed, noting that editorialists “write all the time trying to influence elections.” He recognized the concern that some have for the wealthy influencing elections, and that some own newspapers and other outlets. Why do they get to editorialize and send out their opinions?

    Huntington noted that newspapers are covered under the freedom of the press guaranteed in the Constitution, and that we all know who owns the newspaper. Huelskamp said that ownership is not necessarily known in all cases. He asked about the distinction between an individual buying an ad in the newspaper versus an editorial writer saying the same thing. Would the ad buyer be subject to disclosure, but not the editorial writer? What is the reason for the distinction, he asked?

    Huntington replied that editorials are not included in the definition of electioneering communications in this amendment. Huelskamp pressed for the reason why this is so. Huntington replied that these do not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate, so they were not included in the definition of electioneering communication.

    Huelskamp noted that express advocacy is the whole purpose of this amendment, so why are these exemptions in the amendment? Huntington was not able to give a specific answer.

    Huelskamp said that this amendment would create a situation where a newspaper editorial writer could write something, and then a private citizen could pay for an ad with the exact same language, and the citizen — not the editorial writer — would be subject to election reporting requirements. Why, he asked, should those who own a newspaper have more free speech than others?

    During the debate there seemed to be confusion on spending $500 or more on a communications piece versus contributing $500 or more to an organization.

    Huelskamp mentioned a case in 1958 Alabama, where that state tried to determine who were members of the NAACP. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to anonymous groups to get together and influence the political process, he said. Legislation like the proposed amendment, he told the Senate, would have prevented the NAACP from reporting on the action of the Alabama legislature.

    In closing, Huelskamp said that even ads that let citizens know what elected officials are doing are affected by laws like these. The purpose of this amendment, he said, is to limit and chill speech of those who might disagree.

    Hensley said this amendment is about the peoples’ right to know. He mentioned the organization Americans for Prosperity, saying he thinks it doesn’t want people to have the right to know about their contributions and expenditures. He said that AFP is, in fact, electioneering.

    Hensley contended again that all the amendment says is that if you contribute more than $500, you’re going to have to disclose. He said we know who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor.

    Hensley mentioned an award he received from Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, and that Huelskamp was also honored as a “friend of the public’s right to know. That’s what this is all about.”

    Joining the debate again, Bruce addressed the issue of whose information will be made public. He said that this amendment would require disclosure of anyone who has contributed $500 or more to an organization.

    Senator Jeff Colyer delivered a short lesson on American history, telling how founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson wrote anonymously — electioneering, Colyer contended.

    In a roll call vote, the amendment failed with 18 votes in favor, and 21 against.

    Analysis

    Hensley’s accusation of Americans for Prosperity reveals the true target of this amendment. It, along with a few other organizations, are being singled out in this proposed law. These organizations are largely conservative, although those on the political left have tried to hide large political contributions, as a Kansas Meadowlark investigation revealed.

    I believe that Hensley confuses government action with private action. Open records, which is an issue Huelskamp has been closely involved with, is concerned with citizens’ right to know what government is doing. This amendment addresses actions that private individuals may take. There’s a huge distinction between the two, and that’s one of the largest issues in this amendment.

    In making his remarks about knowing who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, Hensley may have forgotten about unsigned editorials and features like the anonymous and popular Opinion Line in the Wichita Eagle. Most newspapers also allow comments to be left to articles on their online editions, and these are almost always an anonymous form of communication and commonly used for blatant electioneering.

    A problem with this amendment is that individuals may make contributions to organizations for general use, not earmarking the dollars for any specific use such as a political mailing. How would organizations decide whose contributions to disclose?

    In the end, the best solution is a government so small, so limited and powerless, that it doesn’t much matter who is in charge. Then campaign finance won’t be very important.

    This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Wichita school chief makes plea to Wichita-area legislators

    This afternoon, Wichita school superintendent John Allison appeared before the South-central Kansas legislative delegation, explaining Kansas school finance as it applies to the Wichita school district, and offering justification for deciding to join the lawsuit demanding the state spend more on schools.

    Referring to base state aid per pupil, which has been cut several times in the past year for a total of 9.5 percent (depending on who’s doing the arithmetic), Allison said that base aid is the funding with which the district funds regular education, and the represents funds with which the district has the greatest latitude. Other funds are restricted, and have fewer options.

    He said that unlike many businesses, the school district hasn’t lost customers during the recession, and in fact, enrollment is high now. At the same time, production standards increase each year (due to the No Child Left Behind law), and doesn’t vary because of budgetary reasons.

    Allison cited the rapid growth in math and reading scores on the Kansas assessment tests, and rising graduation rates. He said that efforts are paying dividends in achievement.

    An important measure to the Wichita district, he said, is the weighting for special populations. These weightings provide additional funding over base state aid. Weighting factors include non-English speaking students, and students coming from poor families. Allison said that the wealthier districts in the eastern part of Kansas may contest these weightings, but he said there is a “marked difference” in educating in an urban situation versus a suburban situation, and this funding is important.

    Allison said that making further progress “comes down to dollars.”

    He said the district is pursuing efficiency measures in purchasing, including cooperation with other school districts. Storage of large quantities is sometimes a problem.

    He asked that the legislature allow school districts to use a “request for proposal” procedure, instead of the current practice, where schools have to “craft a solution” before asking for bids. The selection of a vendor to install turf on Wichita school football fields last spring was an example where the RFP process was used, but found to be unlawful.

    On the issue of fund balances, Allison said that almost all are restricted funds, mentioning the contingency fund as one that could be used, but the fund’s balance would not even meet district payroll for one month. The Kansas Policy Institute has produced research demonstrating that Kansas schools have $700 million in funds that could be used to make it through a tight fiscal situation, with Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Education Dale Dennis agreeing.

    Regarding the board’s decision on Monday to join the attempt to reopen the Montoy case (the Kansas school funding lawsuit) in an effort to force the state to increase funding, Allison claimed the decision was not made easily. He said it is not a “sudden, magic solution” to the finance issue, and that legislators have to balance funding needs of the state, while keeping Kansas as a viable state for business growth. He mentioned examples of various units of government suing other government.

    Representative Steve Huebert, a Republican from Valley Center asked questions about the wisdom of a lawsuit at this time. He said that school funding will be restored after getting people back to work and restoring our economy. Huebert asked about schools’ emphasis on cuts made to base funding from the state, which is about one-third of total school spending in the case of the Wichita district. Additionally, for the Wichita school system, with its large number of special needs students and students eligible for free and reduced weightings, about two-thirds of the total budget comes from these weightings to the base state aid, and many of these weights do not have restrictions. Talking about only the base funding, Huebert said, is very misleading.

    Allison said he did not disagree, but when cuts have been made, they’ve been made to the base funding. Each time the district takes a reduction, fewer discretionary funds are available.

    Allison said that there are some special education students said that cost “hundreds of thousands per year to provide what’s being required.”

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Republican from east Wichita said that in order to fund Montoy it would require a very large tax increase, and asked if Allison was asking for a tax increase at a time when Kansas families and other Kansas state agencies have experienced larger cuts than schools have faced. Allison said that the question is not advocating a tax increase as much as asking what are the current revenue streams, and are “exemptions and other areas where they need to be in order to meet some of the other obligations of the state.”

    Wagle said we need a “reasonable discussion about how you squeeze blood out of a turnip.” Schools are asking way too much, she said, and animosity is developing because of the decision to sue. Most people when they want funding come to the legislature, and legislators make balanced decisions and fund what they can. We cannot fund Montoy “without an extravagant tax increase,” she said.

    Allison responded that the decision to sue has been made by a large number of elected officials, and “time will tell regarding animosity.” He said he hopes, from a superintendent’s perspective, that we find a way to bridge not only the current situation, but also to look at the long term.

    Coverage from the Wichita Eagle’s Dion Lefler is at Legislators, Wichita superintendent clash over school funding.

  • Emporia’s Jim Barnett will run for Congress

    Jim Barnett, a physician and Republican member of the Kansas Senate from Emporia, will join the field seeking the nomination for United States Congress from the first district of Kansas.

    Barnett ran for Kansas governor in 2006 against Kathleen Sebelius. His running mate was Kansas Senator Susan Wagle of Wichita.

    But when Wagle — a proven fiscal conservative — ran for president of the Kansas Senate, Barnett did not support her. In fact, sources say he encouraged others to vote against her.

    So instead of a proven fiscal conservative leading the Senate, Kansas was stuck with the continued tenure of moderate Republicans: Senate President Stephen Morris, Vice President John Vratl, and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt.

    This was particularly unfortunate for Kansas as this was a tough budget year. The Kansas House ended up simply concurring with the budget that the Senate produced — a budget that we now know had mistakes and omissions. Already the governor is forced to make spending decisions that should be made by the legislature.

    Barnett’s lifetime rating from the Kansas Taxpayer Network’s legislative rankings is poor, meaning that he has been inclined to vote for increased taxation and spending. His message in today’s Emporia Gazette story was different, however, citing his “history of fiscal responsibility.”

    He also said that “There is no doubt that government has gotten too big” and that “we need someone who’s fiscally responsible.”

    Too bad he doesn’t believe that as a member of the Kansas Senate. He could have backed up his words with action.

  • Video from Wichita tea party

    Some video from the Wichita tax day tea party:

    Cheryl Green: “More taxes are coming!”

    Tea party organizer Nancy Armstrong.

    Citizens speak.

    United States Senator Sam Brownback.

    Kansas senator Susan Wagle.

    Vicki Holland Tiahrt.

    Shari Weber speaks about AfterTheTeaParty.com.

    A look at the humanity and the wind.

  • Kansas Governor Not Facing Reality of Budget Crisis

    Kansas Liberty reports that the balancing act performed by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius on the fiscal year 2009 budget is, well, a little off-kilter. (Fiscal 2009 is the current budget year, ending on June 30, 2009).

    In the post Sebelius’ new budget misses the target by $50 million we learn that relying on budget numbers just two months old leads to a budget plan that won’t address the full reality of the situation:

    But the use of out-dated numbers means the budget will result in a deficit, no matter how accurate the projections are.

    Sebelius’ budget recommendations are based on the November Consensus Revenue Estimating Group’s initial deficit projection of $141 million for fiscal year 2009, and $1.021 billion for fiscal year 2010.

    However, new revenue shortfalls have suggested a more accurate picture is a deficit of $185.5 million for fiscal year 2009 and $1.066 billion for fiscal year 2010, as reported yesterday in Kansas Liberty.

    Last week in Wichita, questioning by Senator Susan Wagle seemed to indicate a deficit of around $200 million. Privately, one senator told me he would not be surprised to see the deficit balloon to $250 million by the end of June, as economic conditions seem to worsen every day.

    Martin Hawver explained the politics behind the Governor’s decision to use the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group’s figures of $141 million in his article The politics of budget cutting:

    The Consensus Revenue Estimating Group, comprised of fiscal wizards who, well, estimate future revenues into the State General Fund, predicts that revenues will fall at least $211 million before the fiscal year ends on June 30, 2009. What that means is that spending approved by last year’s Legislature is about $140 million more than Kansas is likely to have (the state had been looking forward to ending this fiscal year with a small balance). … Here’s the political good part, if we can call it that. Sebelius has to meet the figures produced by the revenue estimators back on Nov. 4, and revenues have gotten worse since then. But the Nov. 4 estimate, legally, is the target she is required to meet. … It probably means that the Legislature is going to have to cut more spending this fiscal year, but Sebelius gets to make the least-icky of the cuts. And the political focus will be on the Legislature’s additional cuts to get through this fiscal year.

  • Americans for Prosperity — Kansas to hold second Defending the American Dream Summit

    Event to kick off 2009 Kansas Legislative Session

    TOPEKA — The free-market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity-Kansas will hold its second statewide Defending the American Dream Summit in Wichita Saturday, January 10, 2009, just two days prior to the start of the 2009 Kansas Legislature.

    “This event will serve as a kick-off for the new legislative session,” said Americans for Prosperity-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “Going into the 2009 Legislature, we see an opportunity to help change the way elected officials seem to view their obligations to taxpayers, and how our state budgets its funds.”

    The event, held at the Beech Activity Center in Wichita, will focus on state spending, tax policy and grassroots activism. Confirmed speakers include National Review Online editor and “Liberal Fascism” author Jonah Goldberg; The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore; author Dr. Gregory Schneider; incoming Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal and others, including state senators Susan Wagle (R-Wichita) and Chris Steineger (D-Kansas City). The group will also hear from other elected officials as well as local grassroots activists.

    “We hope to show legislators and elected officials that their constituents will be paying attention to what happens in Topeka during the next few months,” said Sontag. “And we certainly will encourage legislators to focus on reducing spending where appropriate, rather than asking Kansas taxpayers to carry the burden.”

    For more information, call Jen Rezac at 785-354-4237.

    To register to attend the summit, visit defendingthedream.org/KS/.

  • Susan Wagle for Kansas Senate President

    Tomorrow, the Kansas Senate meets to select its leadership. Senate Republicans could do Kansans a favor by electing Susan Wagle of Wichita to be senate president.

    Part of the reason why a Wagle victory would be good for Kansas is her opponent, current senate president Stephen Morris of Hugoton. His political leanings are not right for Kansas as our state enters a tough budgetary period. His lifetime rating from the Kansas Taxpayers Network is 32.5%. There are many Democrats with better ratings. In a New York Times article from earlier this year (One Hand on Her Job, the Other Across the Aisle ), he was quoted as saying “But that’s the only major disagreement we’ve had since she took office,” referring to the expansion of the Holcomb Station coal-fired power plant. Someone who rarely disagrees with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is certainly someone who shouldn’t be in charge of leading the Kansas Senate.

    Susan Wagle, on the other hand, disagrees with the governor on many things. She’d be a great leader of the Kansas Senate.

  • Kansas Taxpayers Network 2006 legislative vote ratings released

    Thank you to Karl Peterjohn for compiling this valuable resource. You can examine the rankings at the Kansas Taxpayers Network website at www.kansastaxpayers.com. Following is a press release describing the ratings.

    17 Legislators Earn 100% rating for 2006 Fiscal Votes

    “There are 17 Kansas legislators who scored 100% on the Kansas Taxpayers Network’s 2006 fiscal scorecard,” said KTN Executive Director Karl Peterjohn. Legislators were measured on their votes on tax and fiscal issues as well as their votes on reining in judicial activists and judicial appropriations. This scorecard also measured on their votes on correcting eminent domain abuse in the wake of the controversial Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. KTN also scored legislators on votes cast that would make this state more economically competitive with the rest of the country and provide property tax relief.

    “KTN has posted the 2006 legislative vote rating at www.kansastaxpayers.com,” said Peterjohn. “We hope that all fiscally concerned Kansans will carefully examine how their legislators have been voting at the statehouse during this election year.”

    There are nine house members who scored 100% on KTN’s rating: Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora; Rep. Steve Huebert, R-Valley Center; Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe; Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Fredonia; Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita; Rep. Ty Masterson, R-Andover; Rep. Don Myers, R-Derby; Rep. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee; and Rep. Jason Watkins, R-Wichita.

    Eight senators earned 100% from KTN. They are: Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia; Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Meade; Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville; Sen. Kay O’Connor, R-Olathe; Sen. Ralph Ostmeyer, R-Grinnell; Sen. Peggy Palmer, R-Augusta; Sen. Mike Petersen, R-Wichita; Sen. Dennis Pyle, R-Hiawatha; and Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita.

    In addition, there were 16 senators and 50 representatives who scored 75% or higher on KTN’s 2006 vote rating and are listed as “taxpayer friendly,” by this group. Peterjohn added, “KTN’s scorecard is valuable since many other groups that used to measure legislators” votes no longer use a straightforward scoring system that is transparent and readily understandable to Kansans.”

    Kansas Taxpayers Network (KTN) is a statewide taxpayer organization based in Wichita. This is the 11th year that KTN has rated legislators’ fiscal votes. Legislators are measured on both their 2006 votes as well as their lifetime score based upon votes cast while serving in the legislature since 1996. KTN also circulates the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and will be issuing a news release on pledge signers before the August 1 primary election.