Voice For Liberty

Tag: Walt Chappell

  • Balance Kansas budget without raising sales tax

    The following article is by Dr. Walt Chappell, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education. A version appeared in the Wichita Eagle. Chappell has offered testimony to the Kansas Legislature on many ways that schools can reduce spending and fulfill their mission at the same time. See Kansas school district consolidation, reorganization testimony heard and At House Appropriations, Chappell presents Kansas school funding ideas.

    On Saturday, a legislative update was held in Wichita. It is clear that serious budget decisions must be made in the next two weeks by our legislators.

    Fortunately, existing cash reserves, cost controls and reduced spending can help balance the State budget to keep our schools strong and provide essential services for our most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. If necessary, additional revenue can come by raising cigarette, alcohol and soft drink taxes without increasing the regressive sales tax.

    As one of the people elected to help maintain strong schools, I am certain that positive actions can be taken to support our teachers and students. The objectives of each elected official I know are not to lay off any classroom teacher. We also want to keep a broad curriculum for our students including vocational courses, art, music, P.E. and driver’s education.

    Here are some facts provided by the Kansas Department of Education and the Legislative Research Office.

    • During the past 10 years, Kansas school district spending from all funding sources has jumped from $3 billion per year to $5.5 billion. This is a $2.5 billion per year increase to teach the same number of students.
    • School districts started this school year with $1.5 billion in carryover cash balances. Of that amount, $700 million were in operating accounts which have increased by 53% in just four years. For example, Wichita schools began the year with $95.7 million in operating cash reserves. It estimates that $66 million remains for next year. There is no budget justification for eliminating any teacher’s job.
    • Spending more money on schools does not produce higher student achievement. During these same ten years, NAEP, ACT and SAT national test scores for Kansas students have remained flat. About 25 percent of our K-12 students still drop-out before graduation. Wichita has 16 of the lowest performing schools yet has a higher than average cost-per-pupil.
    • Only half of the people hired by school districts in Kansas are certified teachers. The rest are non-instructional or administrative staff. With the additional $1 billion the Legislature gave to school districts after the 2005 Montoy lawsuit, 6,000 people were hired. Only one-third were teachers. In the past four years, non-instructional operating costs are up $373 million across Kansas.

    School districts receive 52 percent of the state budget. Legislators must cut education funding to balance the budget. To offset these cuts, school districts can easily use a portion of the hundreds of millions in cash they already have in operating accounts. If more money is needed, they can cut non-instructional and administrative costs. No teachers should be laid off or courses eliminated.

    Our legislators have a tough job ahead. Each of them is trying hard to make sound budget decisions based on facts. We can help them by getting informed and encouraging them to keep essential services without raising sales or property taxes.

    To see district cash balances and test scores, go to Main Issues www.chappell4ksboe.com

  • What’s missing from the Dennis editorial on Kansas school funds

    Today’s Wichita Eagle carries an editorial by Kansas School Board member David Dennis taking issue with claims that Kansas schools have money that can be spent.

    At issue is the claim made by the Kansas Policy Institute and Kansas School Board member Walt Chappell that Kansas schools have hundreds of millions in funds that could be put to use to meet the current shortfall. See Districts Have Funds To Meet Projected $100 Million Shortfall for an explanation.

    The editorial by Dennis explains some of the major funds and their purpose, and gives their balances on July 1.

    But that’s not sufficient. To simply state that a fund has a balance of $x that is used for a certain purpose tells us nothing about whether that amount is the right amount.

    The evidence we do have tells us that the balances in these funds are more than needed. That’s because they’ve been growing rapidly, by 53 percent over the last four years. The only way the fund balances can grow is if schools aren’t spending the money as fast as it’s going in the funds. Dennis didn’t mention this in his editorial.

    So what Kansas schools could do, in many cases, is to spend down these funds. Kansas Policy Institute President Dave Trabert gave an example where a food service fund might have a balance of $10 million. Then suppose the district believes it will need to spend $15 million on food service. Instead of stocking the fund with $15 million of new funding, add just $5 million (plus a little more). This gives the food service fund the ability to do its job, but it frees up perhaps $10 million to be used for other purposes.

    It’s not only theses two — KPI and Chappell — that say spending down these funds is possible. Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Education Dale Dennis agrees.

    An effect of doing this will be that fund balances will be smaller, requiring schools to be careful. That’s not as comfortable as operating with the cushion of large balances. But these are difficult times, and people across the state are taking extraordinary measures.

    <

    p class=”note”>The existence of these funds raises a question: Is it necessary to have so many funds? Do they restrict schools from allocating resources efficiently, to where they are most needed?

    Dennis’ editorial also contains a gross mischaracterization that I’m surprised the Eagle let slip by. It’s in this passage: “The base state aid per pupil for the 2009-10 school year, by statute, should be $4,492. This is the primary source of funding for the regular classroom. Due to state aid reductions, we are down to $4,012, an 11 percent reduction.”

    As I wrote in my recent post Wichita schools on the funding decrease, base state aid per pupil is just a portion of total school spending: “It’s base state aid per pupil that was cut by 9.5%, or $421. But base state aid per pupil is only a portion of total school spending. In the case of the Wichita school district, it’s less than one-third of total funding and spending. To put a cut of $421 in context, consider the total spending by USD 259. It’s somewhere around $13,000 per pupil. $421 is 3.2% of that.”

    (The numbers in my illustration were taken from a document supplied by the Wichita public school system, and are slightly different from the numbers Dennis uses. But they’re in the same neighborhood.)

    So while the numbers Dennis uses are correct — as far as they go — it’s misleading to claim that a reduction in base state aid per pupil results in the same percentage decrease in total school spending. It’s dishonest for someone equipped with the knowledge and experience that Dennis has to make such a claim.

    It’s also further evidence of just how difficult it is to get accurate information. Schools have so much money — even in this tough economic climate — that they go out of the way to hide just how much they have. Sometimes school spending advocates are simply uninformed, as was Rep. Melody McCray-Miller last year when she disputed the per-pupil spending of the Wichita public schools.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for December 14, 2009.

    EPA threatens more gov regs and pushes ‘global warming’

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling today in which it determined that greenhouses gasses, such as carbon dioxide, are harmful to public health. … Derrick Sontag, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas state director, said he disagreed with Jackson’s statement that business leaders had requested additional government regulation of their carbon emissions.”

    Will Copenhagen global-warming fiction influence Kansas?

    (Kansas Liberty) “World leaders and climate experts commenced their environmental discussion at the Copenhagen climate conference today, leaving global warming skeptics to wonder whether the recent ‘Climategate’ scandal would be acknowledged during the significant meeting.”

    Cutting KNEA involvement could cut costs to schools

    (Kansas Liberty) Do Kansas school spending advocates consider all sources of funding when discussing school spending? “Stephen Iliff, a member of the 2010 Commission, which studies education issues in Kansas, said that during his time as a commissioner, he has noticed that school officials, school lobbyists and the mainstream media generally only cite the amount of aid schools receive from the state, while leaving out federal and local funding sources.”

    Board of Education member fights reprimand

    (Kansas Reporter) “Kansas State Board of Education member Walt Chappell, who last month was formally reprimanded by board chairwoman Janet Waugh for comments he made in a TV interview, claimed today that Waugh and other board members are trying to stifle his First Amendment rights to speak freely.”

    Fiscal woes may intensify budget debate next year

    (Kansas Reporter) “Recession is drilling deeper into Kansas’ state budget. And the pain is a long way from over, state executives say.”

    Kansas Educators Question Reprimand and Free Speech

    (Kansas Watchdog) “KSBOE member Walt Chappell questions the validity of a reprimand he received from Board Chair Janet Waugh. The reprimand chastised Chappell for speaking about education issues outside of Board meetings and not being in agreement with other board members. Chappell pointed out that other Board members who speak out but agree with the Board have not been reprimanded.”

    More Questions — and Answers — on School Funding

    (Kansas Watchdog) “In Sunday’s online edition of the Wichita Eagle an opinion piece by Rhonda Holman attempts to address statements by KSBOE member Walt Chappel and reporting by Kansas Policy Institute on school funding. The article barely scratched the surface.”

    Sedgwick County Commission Asks Legislature for Taxpayer Protection

    (Kansas Watchdog) “In a 3-2 vote the Sedgwick County Commission has asked the state Legislature for voter approval before any future property tax increases that raise the mill levy. The request is part of the county’s annual legislative platform or wish list. The platform specifically requests: ‘Tax Equity — Part 2. All local sales tax increases must be approved by voters under Kansas law. All property tax increases that raise the mill levy should also be required to receive voter approval.’”

    State Sen. Julia Lynn grills SRS Secretary about contracting irregularities: ‘It just smells bad’

    (Kansas Watchdog) “State Senator Julia Lynn (R-Olathe) grilled SRS Secretary Don Jordan at the second day of recent hearings on children’s issue about contracting irregularities in his agency. Lynn questioned Jordan’s decision in Oct 2008 to send an extra $712,000 to Community Living Opportunities in Lenexa, after Kansas Democratic Party Chair, Larry Gates, who was a CLO board member, acted as a “private citizen” in requesting additional funding.”

    Letter From The Newsroom — Energy Efficiency

    (State of the State, Kansas) “This week we look at the possibilities for making Kansas energy efficient. With the first cold blast over the last couple weeks, winter is here and heating bills will jump.”

    Kelsey Brings Economic Development Plan To Wichita

    (State of the State, Kansas) “Several Kansas Legislators were on hand as 4th Congressional District Candidate Dick Kelsey unveiled his economic development plan in Wichita on Tuesday.”

    No Change in Kansas Uninsured Rate

    (Kansas Health Institute) “New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the percentage of Kansans without health insurance remained relatively steady in 2007-2008 at 12.4 percent. However, the percentage of Kansas children without coverage increased to 9.6 percent from 7.8 percent in 2006-2007. This KHI Fact Sheet provides a summary of the most recent data on the uninsured in Kansas.”

  • Kansas school spending advocates: no alternative views welcome

    On Monday and Tuesday, the Kansas House Appropriations Committee held hearings, and big topics were Kansas school funding and the Kansas budget. The reaction by school spending advocates to two speakers is illustrative of the highly divisive nature of public school operation and funding in Kansas.

    We need to label them school spending advocates — and government schools at that — because it is increasingly apparent that increasing school spending (or avoiding necessary reductions in spending) at the expense of all reason is their goal. Suggestions that schools should operate more efficiently or learn to live with a little less — as many Kansas families and businesses are doing — will result in attacks on the messenger, sometimes unnecessarily personal in nature.

    Monday’s education-related testimony started with Kansas State Board of Education member Walt Chappell, followed by former Kansas Education Commissioner Bob Corkins. My reporting of their testimony is at At House Appropriations, Chappell presents Kansas school funding ideas and Corkins testifies on school finance history, recommendations.

    An example of the criticism made by government school spending advocates is that of Kathy Cook of Kansas Families for Education. In her newsletter she spoke of “Black Monday in Topeka,” writing “From House Appropriations to the Governor’s press briefing, it was nothing but bad news for our schools and our students. It was the longest drive home, and not without tears for all that is about to be lost for our kids.”

    She made personal attacks on both Chappell and Corkins without making substantive criticism about their testimony.

    At the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union), the “Under the Dome Today” newsletter carried a heading reading “Walt Chappell, Bob Corkins attack public education.” I heard no such attack from either speaker. They suggested ways that schools could operate differently to save money (Chappell) and to organize their reporting and accounting to better track spending and results (Corkins).

    To the Kansas education establishment, evidently, these suggestions represent unwanted meddling in school affairs.

    Reacting to the testimony of Chappell and Corkins, one leftist Kansas blog took the committee and its chairman to task for holding “a hearing that was lopsided even by Adolf Eichmann’s standards.” I was there for the entire afternoon, and after these two spoke, I heard three school district superintendents plea for more funds. Then, topping off the day was chief school spending and taxing advocate Mark Tallman, the lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB). There was, believe me, much pleading for more school funding.

    Some of the testimony was difficult to listen to. Fred Kaufman, superintendent of the Hays school system, said twice that there is no advocacy group for school administrators. I wonder if he has heard of United School Administrators of Kansas. This organization’s website describes itself as “a statewide ‘umbrella’ organization comprised of members of ten school administrator associations. We represent more than 2,000 individual administrators statewide.”

    The backdrop of all this is that the actual decrease in Kansas school funding, when considering all sources of funding, is quite small. As of August — before the governor’s cuts on Monday — estimated Kansas school spending per pupil for the 2009 to 2010 school year, when considering all sources of school revenue, fell by only 0.64%. That’s quite a bit less than one percent. It’s a rounding error, a fluctuation that could also have been caused by events such as, say, a cold winter causing higher utility bills. It’s an event that should have no affect on the ability of the schools to educate children.

    The reductions the governor made on Monday will increase the cut that schools will have to absorb. When considering this, it’s important to remember that schools fared much better than many state agencies this year. Schools still have a tremendous amount of money to work with, a fact that schools work hard to hide.

    Strong evidence that schools have plenty of money is that fund balances have been increasing. The way that these funds — and we’re talking about nearly $700 million in operating funds, not capital funds — increase their balances is by more money going in than is spent.

    The uncovering of the existence of these balances is strongly attacked by school spending advocates. Despite many school administrator’s claims, sunlight and transparency is not their goal.

  • At House Appropriations, Chappell presents Kansas school funding ideas

    Topeka, Kansas — At today’s meeting of the Kansas House Appropriations Committee, Walt Chappell presented ideas on increasing efficiency and reducing cost in Kansas schools.

    Chappell, a Democrat from Wichita, was elected to the Kansas State Board of Education last year. He has 40 years varied experience as a businessman, former science teacher, college and university faculty, administrator, and education budget director. His testimony today was presented as his own, and he traveled to Topeka to present it at his own expense.

    Here is a summary of the ideas he presented to the members of the committee:

    First, remove restrictions on the way that school fund balances can be used. As of July 1, Kansas schools carried a balance of $1.5 billion in various funds. About $700 million of this is in operating fund accounts, which represents an increase of 53% in four years. This money could be spent, or alternatively, the rate of contribution to the funds could be reduced. According to Chappell: “This means that the cuts which must be made to K-12 education will have minimal impact on instruction and eliminate any need to raise taxes or increase funding. It is best to use money already in the bank rather than ask for more during these tough economic times.”

    Second, reduce the number of school districts. Chappell says that $300 million a year could be saved by merging the 296 Kansas school districts into about 40 districts, each with 10,000 or more students. 252 of Kansas school districts (85%) have fewer that 2,000 students. It’s not cost-effective, according to Chappell.

    The larger school districts will make more efficient use of administrators, teachers, transportation, maintenance, and purchasing power. Better use of existing facilities will result.

    Third, increase the productivity of K-12 teachers and college faculty. Chappell says that each K-12 teacher must be in the school building not less than eight hours per day: “A full day’s work for a full day’s pay.” Teachers should teach at least six class periods, and then remain in the building to grade papers, hold parent-teacher conferences, help students who are having problems, and attend in-service training.

    One of the benefits of this will be the need to reduce in-service days, which, according to Chappell, “cost millions of dollars with questionable improvements in instruction.” This emphasis on productivity is needed, he said, because 80% of budgets goes to personnel.

    Fourth, place a temporary hold for two years on the state matching funding for school bond projects. Chappell held up one of the “25%” buttons used to promote the Wichita school bond issue last year. That number refers to the portion of bond spending that the state would pay. He made the point that voters outside the Wichita school district, for example, didn’t have the chance to vote on whether they wanted to help the Wichita district build new facilities.

    He also said that many of these building projects have low instructional value.

    Fifth, there should be “pay to play” for K-12 varsity sports. Chappell said that three to four percent of Kansas K-12 spending goes to varsity athletics, while at the same time only one percent goes to vocational education to teach students employable skills. Which is more important? Sports boosters and parents of student athletes need to pay the extra costs of athletics.

    Sixth, change the definition of an at-risk student. Currently, the definition of at-risk is based on the parents’ income. But this is an artificial measure, Chappell says, that has nothing to do with a child’s ability to learn, so this weighting in the school funding formula needs to be changed.

    In total, Chappell said that these measures would save $500 million each year, and school districts would have more flexibility.

    Questions from the committee members included these:

    A questioner said that in all his information, Chappell didn’t mention quality of education or student achievement. Chappell responded that in larger, regional school districts, teachers would have fewer preparations, and teachers would be able to concentrate on what they do best. He also said we should concentrate on building facilities that would teach students employable skills — vocational education — rather than things like swimming pools.

    A question about consolidation brought out the point that most of the talk about consolidation has been along the lines of merging two small districts, creating one still small district. This type of consolidation won’t produce the savings we need to realize. With larger consolidation, some schools might need to be closed, but savings could be on the order of $1,500 to $2,000 per student, per year, which is a great deal of money across the state. Chappell added that some school districts are so strapped for funds that they won’t be able to survive much longer on their own.

    Another question asked how many certified teachers working in Kansas school districts do not teach students. Chappell replied that this is a new concept, the mentor or teacher coach, and there’s a lot of money spent on this.

    Analysis

    The issue of large unencumbered fund balances in Kansas school districts is starting to receive the attention it deserves, although school spending advocates are not pleased, with Kansas Watchdog reporting one Kansas state board of education member recently saying “Please, lets stop talking about $1.3 billion in unencumbered funds.” (That’s last year’s number, as this year it has grown to $1.5 billion.) It’s uncontested, however, that these fund balances are growing, which is evidence that schools have been collecting more money than they have been spending. These balances are not spread uniformly across school districts, however. More information about this can be found at Extra money in Kansas school funds could help with budget.

    School consolidation in Kansas is often portrayed as an issue affecting primarily sparsely-populated areas in western Kansas, where consolidation may mean that students would have to travel long distances to a reduced number of schools. Speaking with Chappell afterwards, I learned that Ellis county has seven school districts. There’s no good reason, he said, why these districts can’t merge.

    Chappell’s idea that teachers should spend eight hours in the school building was met with resistance from two committee members in their questions. Often the debate on school funding is cast by school spending advocates as a war against teachers. Chappell wants to make better use of labor and school facility resources so that more time can be spent on instruction.

    A link to Chappell’s testimony is Kansas School Testimony by Walt Chappell 2009-11-23.

  • 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.

  • Lack of data, oversight raises questions on Kansas school spending

    In the following report, investigative reporter Paul Soutar of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy takes a look at school spending in Kansas. Particularly troubling is the decision to abandon an audit already in progress.

    A recent decision by the 2010 Commission to not complete an efficiency audit of K-12 schools in Kansas may undercut the case for increased spending on schools.

    In its 2005 session the Kansas Legislature increased state funding for school districts by more than $145 million for the following school year. The same bill also created the 2010 Commission and charged it to, in part, “conduct ongoing monitoring of the school district finance act” and directed it to “ensure that the Kansas system is efficient and effective.”

    Three years into its existence, the 2010 Commission asked Legislative Post Audit (LPA) to conduct the first efficiency audit of K-12 school districts. But in its June 29 meeting, Commission members voted to cancel the second half of the audit. Commission chair Rochelle Chronister told members that district administrators are too busy dealing with budget cuts to complete the audit.

    2010 Commission member Dennis Jones supports the decision not to complete the audit as originally requested. “We’re in a time of severe economic stress for everyone and school districts are also feeling the pinch. It seems to me that it’s not the best or most efficient use of the districts’ time to be inundated with a bunch of housekeeping questions about efficiency. I think it’s better use of manpower to get budgets prepared and to prepare for next school year.

    Districts can voluntarily complete the audit but so far only two of the state’s 294 districts, Derby and Ellinwood, have chosen to do so.

    The Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) was originally asked to analyze district staffing and expenditure data to identify areas where spending appeared to be out of line with their peers. The intent was to answer two questions:

    • Do the districts manage their personnel, facilities, and other resources in an efficient and economical manner?
    • Do the districts follow best practices for financial management to ensure that their financial resources are protected?

    In the first phase LPA collected data from districts for analysis. According to the report released July 25, “The second phase called for following up on a sample of districts to evaluate their processes in the areas that appeared to be out-of-line to determine if there were ways they could reduce costs.”

    The 2010 Commission suspended the second phase of the audit at its April 2009 meeting, and asked LPA to review the available data looking for trends or patterns that shed light on districts’ efficiency. At the May meeting, the commission asked LPA to contact districts and offer help in finding ways to operate more efficiently. The second phase of the audit was effectively canceled and the new scope of the audit was: How do school districts compare on various measures of efficiency?

    The utility of that evaluation is limited, according to the LPA report, because districts do not uniformly report statistics to the Kansas Department of Education (KSDE). Reporting errors could be evaluated and corrected by completing the original audit plan.

    School districts don’t report certain types of data consistently, making meaningful comparisons difficult. According to LPA, some district employees don’t know the accounting standards or ignore training. For example, the LPA report says the Goessel district reported spending an average of $4 per student on student support services for 2006-07 and 2007-08 when, on average, the 121 districts examined in the report spent $242 per student in that category Goessel officials told LPA they reported certain contracted student support services as instruction expenses.

    Previous LPA reports, a Standard & Poor’s audit and even administrators at KSDE have stressed the need to follow standardized accounting practices.

    Stephen Iliff is a CPA and is the only member of the 2010 Commission not connected to or retired from government or public schools. He wrote dissenting minority reports for several of the commission’s annual reports to the legislature and says district accounting staff must be trained and held accountable so comparable information can be obtained. “Public school accounting practices would not be tolerated in the private sector.”

    In his dissent from the commission’s 2006 report Iliff wrote, “Legislators are continually being asked to provide more funds for education and do not understand where the money is going or how it is being used. This is like writing a blank check to the school system by the taxpayers.”

    The report goes on to say, “At least 6 out of 12 duties given to the 2010 Commission include words like determine, evaluate, monitor, review and ensure the Kansas system is efficient and effective. All of these words and duties are meaningless without a system that will capture information in a comprehensive, methodical, orderly and consistent fashion.”

    A March 2002 LPA audit found that laws, policies, and practices related to school district budgets are flawed in some areas including inconsistent reporting that makes it difficult to know how much money a district is taking in or how money is being spent. Iliff says those problems still exist.

    Dissent Discouraged

    State Board of Education member Walt Chappell, the lone dissenter in the state school board’s July 15 decision to ask the Legislature for $282 million in additional funding, says the vote was rushed and lacked serious discussion. “What I was concerned about is that we were just going through the motions. We didn’t discuss whether schools needed the money or had other priorities or whether some should go to vocational programs.”

    According to Iliff dissenting opinions are not sought in school oversight. “Not only do they not ask for it but Rochelle Chronister tried to cut out three pages of one minority report and I had to go above her to a lawyer to keep it in.”

    “The people Chronister asks to to speak to the Commission appear to create a stacked deck,” Iliff said in a recent phone interview.

    Nine district superintendents appeared before the commission June 29 and each asked for more money, either through additional state revenue (more or higher taxes), funding to levels previously budgeted by the Legislature or adjustments in the formula. Their testimony was punctuated with stories of dramatic increases in the number of poor and special needs students and English language learners. Most had data purporting to show significant increases in student performance as measured against State assessment tests, but no comparisons were made to national achievement tests, which show much lower proficiency levels.

    Mark Tallman, Assistant Executive Director/Advocacy for the Kansas Association of School Boards was the concluding witness before the 2010 Commission on June 29 and presented data in support of the superintendents’ pleas for more money.

    Data used use to show increases in student performance are connected to increased funding is deceptive according to Iliff. “Before the increases in cash because of the Supreme Court decision the graphs were already heading upward.” Iliff says he believes the trend is more the result of the standards and sanctions put in place by No Child Left Behind.

    A 2008 LPA report on district’s use of increased funding says, “student outcomes had been improving for several years before the changes to the funding formula, and have continued to improve.” The report goes on to say, “because student performance is the result of years of accumulated instruction, it’s too early to tell how the new funding has affected performance.”

    School superintendents also made their case for increased funding.

    Brenda Dietrich, superintendent of USD 437, Auburn-Washburn schools in Topeka, asked the commission to urge the legislature to provide the funding that was initially budgeted in conjunction with court-mandated spending increases. Proponents of increased funding say the legislature is in violation of the Kansas Supreme Court’s order if they don’t provide the funding.

    Dietrich noted, “There was plenty of money in our state treasury to fund education and all other agencies a mere three years ago.” She also put the onus squarely on state legislators, “Through the state’s budget process they single-handedly control the conditions under which the children of Kansas can access a quality education.”

    Dennis Stones, superintendent of USD 441, Sabetha, asked that the legislature seek additional revenue streams and enact a moratorium on tax breaks and tax cuts. His district is cutting activities including some athletic games and freshman football.

    Chronister told Stones he should do more than cut a few coaches and games. “If you cut football programs suddenly a tax increase might not look so bad.”

    When asked in a later phone interview to clarify her comment, Chronister said, “I’m going to ask what have you done to really wake your patrons up. I know some people the only thing they care about is who’s coaching the football team and who’s wining games. I also know we seldom have people come and yell and scream about the math teacher but it’s not uncommon to have people yelling about the football coach.”

    Beth Reust, superintendent of USD 270, Plainville, said her district tried to eliminate driver’s education to help balance their budget. After strong reaction from the community it was reinstated along with a $350 tuition charge. The district planned for 28 students but only 15 signed up because some parents found a better deal; a neighboring district offers the class for $150.

    Reust also asked that the legislature ramp spending down rather than cutting it all at once. “If you have $60,000 then get $90,000 and start living on $90,000 you get accustomed to it.”

    Jill Shackelford, superintendent of USD 500, Kansas City, Kan., also mentioned getting accustomed to budget increases. “I started as superintendent the first year of the Montoy increase. I thought that honeymoon was going to last forever.”

    Iliff says, “Some people in education spend like there’s no tomorrow.”

    Legislature responsibility

    “The legislature either needs to belly up to the bar, so to speak, or change the law,” Chronister said during the phone interview. “If they change the law they are going to be in a position that the courts are going to be right back at them for not providing the money for a public education for every child as the state constitution charges them.”

    According to Chronister the current focus of the commission is urging the legislature to find additional money for schools.

    Jones thinks that’s a mistake. “If we wanted to be California that might be a position to take. The legislature still has the constitutional authority to determine a suitable provision for finance. In these times of dire economic stress the legislature has to have flexibility to meet the needs of all of Kansans.”

    Jones sees flaws in the formula. “We were far better off when local districts had some autonomy over how much to spend and how to spend it. We’ve taken that away from local districts and said every student in Kansas is lumped in category A and then some other sub-categories. That hamstrings the local school board.”

    Jones also believes the legislature is unduly bound. “The Supreme Court has determined that an opportunity for a quality education is a basic right of every student in Kansas and we’re going to measure that with outputs and with an arbitrary funding formula. I think to some extent that hamstrings the legislature.”

    “The most important single function the state of Kansas provides is the education of its students,” Jones said. “We must give our young people an opportunity to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. And in an ideal world the funding would be whatever it takes. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. Schools are going to have to share in the sacrifice asked of everyone.”

    Donald Adkisson, Director of Finance for USD 260, Derby, says Derby’s decision to voluntarily proceed with the LPA audit is an opportunity to get some more information. “We’ve made so many cuts in the last 10 years, we’re at the point we’re willing to hear ideas from anyone.” Transparency and efficiency are important in Derby according to Adkisson, “We don’t hide anything. Come in and look at us. We’re going to do as much as we can to keep the costs low for the taxpayers.”

    Iliff says asking for increased funding in the current economy is arrogant. “It’s insensitive to the struggles of the common person who has lost his job. A lot of people are foregoing a lot of benefits just to make ends meet. The people asking for increases seem like they’re impervious, a new dynasty or political class.”