​The results of Tuesday’s Primary are in, and the message is clear: Kansas voters are ready to get our state back on course. The opposition from Republicans against their party’s extremist legislators indicates that they’re ready for a change of direction. In the most visible and critical contests, new candidates won almost every race, adding more common sense and moderation to the Kansas Legislature and giving the state a new vision for the future. From Western Kansas to Johnson County, there will be new faces in the legislature and new problem solvers to begin the hard work of undoing the damage done by Governor Brownback and his legislative allies.

We knew August 2nd would be a critical benchmark day, and there are several important things to take away from it as we go forward. Obviously, this was one huge step toward returning Kansas to times of balance and sound decisions—under the consensus-building leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. Now the focus turns toward the November 8th General Election, where this coalition has the opportunity to build on the gains made in the Primary. With that in mind, now is an important time to mention that our friends with the Kansas Chamber of Commerce (etc.) and their wealthy backers will have had their reality check and will likely return—with more money and more misleading attempts to convince you that their experiment is working and “the sun is still shining in Kansas.” Fortunately, we now have proof that Kansas voters know better, but this makes the effort to continue reaching out and educating our fellow citizens even more important. It will be incumbent upon all the backers of quality candidates and real solutions to our challenges to double down and make the most of every campaign day. We have witnessed some dark days throughout the past few years, but with the help of many committed Kansans, the light of a new day can shine brightly all across our state.

The key contests in November will depend much more on the success of Democratic candidates in uniting people from across the political spectrum around this vision for a better future. In these races, there is a real opportunity to bring together the rational conservative voters, who value fiscal responsibility and support wise investments in our future, with Democratic and Independent voters, to reject the failed policies of the past, look beyond party labels, and bring change on behalf of the people of Kansas—not just the monied interests that got us where we are today in the first place. The quality of the candidates is certainly there, and I've been very impressed with their passion and commitment. The rest is up to us, the voters, to stay engaged and get involved.

For me, Tuesday’s results are a reflection of citizen concern about all the harmful decisions that have been coming from Topeka and, most importantly, a realization that concerned folks needed to do more than just complain. I see it reflected as well in the armies of grassroots support that many sound, moderate candidates have been able to assemble. The unified concern for restoring our constitutional commitment to public education, sustainably addressing the fiscal crisis, maintaining our infrastructure, securing the role of an independent judiciary, and rising to meet our many other challenges has been truly inspirational. Now, we just need more Kansans to join this cause. And, once again, I urge readers who are ready for a change of course to share this message and/or actively seek opportunities to prepare your friends and neighbors to vote for a continuation of the momentum we established in the Primary. What we do between now and November will decide the future of our state.

Following the Legislature in Special Session last Friday certainly kept me busy with my Twitter account. For most of the day, it appeared it was going to take some time to solve the immediate challenge of funding schools in Kansas at an equitable level, as deemed by the Kansas Constitution. Then suddenly out of the blue, they not only got the votes needed but almost unanimous votes in both houses. They got done in two days what had to be done in the short term. It could have taken ten, and I would not have been surprised. Given the court's response today, it appears the immediate crisis has been momentarily satisfied. So does this mean sanity suddenly returned to the Legislature during the Special Session? Unfortunately, the short answer is "no," but nonetheless, there were some important things we can take away from the two days of turmoil we witnessed last week.

First, it’s important to remember that the Special Session was only convened to address the equity portion of the lawsuit, yet to come is a decision on whether the funding levels of Kansas schools are constitutionally adequate. This means that more important decisions loom next year, when a more sustainable fix will be required. So what did we learn from this Special Session about the incumbents who will be seeking the opportunity to make these crucial decisions for our state, and what kind of representation will be required in order to get it right?

To me, an obvious takeaway from the Special Session is that, for one of the very few times, the ideas and leadership of moderate Republicans and Democrats were taken seriously. The interesting question is: why? From what I have learned, the pro-education legislators had done their homework and were better prepared to propose something that would work. Helping this might have been the desire of the current leadership to avoid more bad publicity and get their folks home to raise money and campaign. In this case, confirming “why” is not as important as what we, as voters, should do as a result of this. It’s critical that we take this as further incentive to review carefully our choices in the coming elections, and that we see there is a better way forward—one that’s possible through the election of more consensus-building problem solvers to the legislature.
​
It’s also important that the legislature avoided, in the end, doing anything really outlandish during the Special Session. The only non-essential issue raised was the leadership’s constitutional amendment introduced to take the Supreme Court, (for now) an equal branch of government, out of any power to impact adequate and appropriate funding of public schools. Fortunately, for the sake of Kansas and public education, it failed by one vote to receive the ⅔ vote necessary for passage, going down to defeat in the State Senate. Along with eight Democrats, six Republican Senators stood up to the pressure of the Senate leadership and voted for public education. Come August 2nd and November 8th, if you live in any of these fourteen Senate districts and you want quality public schools, good judgment, and courage, you have your candidate to support. If you live in one of the other twenty-six Senate districts (or a House district held by someone who supports the direction of the current administration), electing different representation, regardless of party affiliation, will be needed in order to defend Kansas schools from further attacks, unconstitutional actions, and short-sighted policies.

​Truly restoring sanity will require many steps over the course of several election cycles and legislative sessions. But it's imperative that we make significant strides along that path during this election year and sustain that momentum in the years to come.

​Never in my lifetime have there been legislative races where more was at stake and also where the voters have such clear choices in most of the Kansas House and Senate districts. In most cases, it comes down to a choice between continuing the failed policies of the current administration or acknowledging openly that the current direction is not working. Turning the ship around will not be easy, nor can it be done in one legislative session. It will take years, but the cost of not starting that process in this election year is beyond the pale.

I urge each and every person reading this message to take seriously every opportunity they have to support the many quality moderate candidates of both parties who are seeking office in this critical and competitive election year. This can be done by either directly or indirectly motivating others to get involved. And it starts with many critical primary races to be settled on August 2nd. Priority here are key Republican-held districts where a challenger of high quality and commitment to problem solving is working hard, and with your help, these candidates can be part of the effort to restore sanity.

While the first benchmark will be in the Republican primary, I’d urge Democrats and Independents to understand that this is not a primary to sit out. I’m not encouraging changes to party registration, for which the deadline has already passed anyway. However, I’d remind you that—​regardless of where you live—​you know some of the Republican voters who will have the opportunity to send a message to the extremist members of their party. Make sure these voters know what is at stake and which Republican is on the side of restoring our state versus who will be a “rubber stamp” for the failed and damaging policies of the recent past. Many of these races will be close, where a handful of votes will make the difference, so don’t tell me you can’t have an impact.

For the incumbents seeking re-election, they have voting records which will clearly put them on one side or the other, and finding those specifics will be relatively easy, including the results of the Special Session. Given the number of incumbents not seeking re-election, a message in and of itself, those districts will require a little more work to educate voters on the decisions they’ll have in front of them. I suspect many of the candidates trying to replace an incumbent who was tied to the administration will work very hard to avoid being tagged with ties to the least popular governor in the United States. But, through public inquiry and engagement, it will be clear who believes in sustainably addressing the fiscal crisis, wisely investing in quality education and research, maintaining our infrastructure, and supporting the historical value of a nonpartisan, independent judiciary. This campaign season is off and running, and there are many problem solvers who will need your active support.

​Following Wednesday’s Sine Die activities at the Capitol on Twitter was a very disturbing experience. It was far from a "Red-Letter Day," unless you include the red ink from May's revenue numbers announced that morning. This urgent and growing problem, in addition to the total lack of responsibility or willingness to address it, is a recipe for disaster given the lack of sound leadership we have at the moment in Topeka. Reinforcing this were veteran legislators bailing at the last minute on re-election bids, several making it clear they wanted no part of the many years, at best, ahead of digging out of this mess. Combining this day of turmoil with the filing deadline for the 2016 election made for an interesting mix of both the challenges and opportunities facing our future.

Look at the financial challenge for a moment. It was bleak going in, and then an additional shortfall of approximately $76 million in May revenue was announced. Add to that the fact that the Supreme Court decision on school finance only addressed the equity side of the suit, which calls for roughly $40 million. This means a much bigger number could come later when the adequacy issue is resolved. This would mean, even after responsible action is required to address the fairness side by leveling the playing field consistent with the constitution, public schools will still be underfunded and require corrective action.

Several key legislators openly expressed total disrespect for the Justices of the Supreme Court and a long-standing interpretation of the state’s responsibility to fund public education. They charged the Justices with “playing politics”—an accusation that frankly seems a little ridiculous after several attempts on their part to inject politics into the, for now, separate and independent third branch of government. For me, all this is a far cry from the decades of responsible legislators from both political parties who worked out their disagreements and, in the end, did their job by appropriately funding public education and supporting the Kansas Constitution. What a difference we have today.

For now, the legislature has adjourned, but they will be back in special session soon at the calling of the Governor. Timing will be tight, for the solution must come in time for the court to act and hopefully clear the way for our schools to open come fall. But even with this done, we’ll likely still have many school districts implementing unprecedented measures to save money, at the expense of quality education for the students. All of this plays out as the August 2nd primary looms, with many key Republican races in both Houses that will have much to say about our state’s progress in righting the ship. For the many who are hoping to see a change of course, it will be the first opportunity to take strides along the road to recovery.

“What the Hell is Wrong With Kansas” was the title of a joint presentation that Governor Mike Hayden and I made in Wichita on Saturday, at a forum sponsored by Women for Kansas. The effort highlighted some of the serious issues facing our state and, in the process, made the point that the concern wasn’t just coming from one political party. Kansans of all political stripes—​Republican, Democratic, and Independent—​have real policy differences with the Governor and those in the legislature who made his agenda a reality in our state. This is what prompted Governor Hayden—​a conservative—​and myself to speak out together on the desperate need to change directions in Kansas.

In our presentation, we discussed just how much has changed in the political environment in the years since we each left office—​from the decline in civility, to the increased impact of special interest money, and the viciousness and extremism of our politics. Of course there were very strong differences when each of us served in the legislature and the governor’s office. But the fight then was always over how best to serve Kansas, knowing that we had to wisely invest in education, take care of our infrastructure, and provide help to our citizens most in need. Throughout our history, our approach to solving problems has been straightforward: we listened to each other, clarified our differences, and reached compromises that wisely served the people of Kansas.

Fortunately, the proud past I just described isn’t ancient history—in fact, it’s far from it. This August and November, the people of Kansas have an opportunity to restore this common sense approach by electing more problem solvers to the legislature. And that spirit of collaboration and compromise for the common good is alive and well among the many courageous individuals—both citizens and public servants—who are working (or will join the effort) to turn things around. It’s critical that voters understand the importance of being informed on the challenges we face and that they know which candidates would serve their real interests. In order to accomplish this, volunteers and supporters will need to work purposefully every day to make sure that their personal networks—and their neighbors—are ready to vote for a change of course.

The first benchmark day will be August 2nd, where the Primary Election will decide a number of key seats in both the House and Senate. That will be the first opportunity to send a clear message—​around the state and to the nation—​that we’re getting back on track, that the failed tax experiment will be brought to an end, and that the long tradition of sane, forward-thinking policy is on its way back to Kansas.

​In the 2004 Kansas legislative session, the Republican-controlled legislature—​led by Representative Kenny Wilk and Senator Nick Jordan, working with Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon—​created the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). For six years, it enjoyed across-the-board support from the Kansas Legislature, the Bioscience community, and communities and research institutions across the state. Funding came from income tax paid by the existing bioscience companies already employing people and doing business in Kansas.

KBA’s success was based on some really sound thinking that made good sense both for the private sector and the State of Kansas. The vision was to build on the already existing bioscience success in the state through strong public-private partnerships. Common sense indicated that much potential remained. In time, our dependence on agriculture, manufacturing, and the oil and gas sectors would have another partner. The genius of the plan was to take the existing revenue stream and put it into an Authority established by law. The Authority would be governed by appointments from the Governor and Legislative leaders to hire the talent to wisely invest and partner with projects in the best interests of the state. They would be able to work with outside investors, making commitments for periods longer than one fiscal year, and not dependent on annual appropriations from the Legislature—​a key for private sector involvement.   

Successes included providing key leadership and timely resources for Kansas to be awarded with the NBAF selection (National Bio and Agro Defense Facility) now being constructed in Manhattan. NBAF will do the highest level research on zoonotic diseases, the ones that can move from animals to humans. Also, the National Cancer Designation for the the KU Medical Center allows area citizens access to new drugs on trial. KBA resources were key for funding nationally-recognized consultants, hiring nationally respected cancer researchers, buying much needed support equipment, and securing key infrastructure improvements necessary to compete. Both projects required strong leadership from Kansas State University and the University of Kansas, as well as full support from our Congressional Delegation and the Kansas Legislature. These two projects alone will have broad positive impacts on the state of Kansas for decades to come, but it's likely that neither would have happened without the KBA's support and engagement.

The progress in that short six year window led to national recognition for Kansas and its growing bioscience sector and jealousy from surrounding states that didn’t have this engine for economic development.

Then came the election in November 2010 and a new Governor. Although nothing about the KBA was raised during the campaign, within 60 days of this new administration, that all changed. Concerns were raised that we were picking winners and losers (we did invest in proposals with the best potential), that we weren’t distributing the money across the state, and that the administration had evidence of criminal activity within the Authority and demanded a forensic audit.

No evidence of criminal activity was ever brought forward and a year later (and well over a million tax dollars wasted), they had found nothing of substance going back to the very beginning of the Authority. Oh yes, there were the drummed up charges against our CEO with the only findings tied to actions after the audit began.
​
The eventual death has been long and painful in coming. A tragedy for the state to be sure but only possible because enough legislators went along with the Governor’s actions and bought into a growing mentality that ignores the value of research and the need to wisely invest in the economic future of Kansas. For years, our state has been reaping the benefits of these important investments, but now I fear the only impacts we’ll feel will be the sighs of relief coming from the east, as economic developers in Missouri now see an opportunity to compete.

In the “good old days,” it was often said that when the legislature finally adjourned, everyone felt safer. Well, they have adjourned, but I know there are good people all across our state who feel anything but safe as a result of the most recent late-night governing session by the Kansas Legislature. I also know there were many who wanted them to try longer and harder to get the budget more acceptable. Some had hoped, for example, that delaying state transfers to KPERS could be avoided, worrying that the delay would lead to the transfer never taking place—​which, frankly, is a legitimate fear. But, from my experience, if they had failed Sunday night (Monday morning) to get the necessary votes in one house or the other on the budget, the follow-up product would very likely have been worse. Why? Because the leadership would have found ways to get the attention of key legislators who didn’t support what they, the majority leadership, had put together and that would have led to taking away, not adding, to the budget.

They are already letting the Governor finish the cutting and running the risk of their negative balance budget being declared unconstitutional. Included now is punishing research universities with a higher percentage cut than the other Regent institutions. Sure, the dollar cut being larger for our larger institutions might seem to make sense for some. But the specific way it was done, penalizing institutions for bringing federal research dollars to Kansas, boggles any sane person's mind. The lack of understanding for the value of the research itself, much less the economic value of such dollars to the state, is hard to comprehend and certainly hard to defend. Now, as always, there were those who fought against all this, but in the end, the majority ruled—​a majority we have a chance to address in this election year.

In the big picture, one key thing to understand is that there will only be one really good chance to get this done right, and for now, the votes are just not there to do what is best for Kansas. Half measures will not get it done. That is why the defeat of restoring some of the LLC tax cuts on Saturday was fine with me. Getting it right starts now—​with the hard work to achieve the positive results we need in the August primary and then in the November general election.  At that point, there can be some real positive expectations. We should be able to at least stop the digging and the passage of additional acts of ignorance, and who knows, there might be some other areas where positive consensus emerges. But not even then will there be the power to begin the real restoration of Kansas Government. For only in 2018 will we have the opportunity to bring back positive leadership to the second floor of the capitol, and then in January 2019, we have the chance to really start moving in a positive direction. That is a long wait and it’s unfortunate that rolling back all the damage done in the past few years will take so long, but it is the only realistic path we have towards restoring Kansas to its proud past.

For several years now, we’ve had seemingly endless actions from the Capitol that made little or no sense, and despite opposition from many legislators from both sides of the aisle (not to mention hours of testimony from subject matter experts), the actions passed into law. While this trend is likely to continue in some form or fashion throughout the remainder of this legislative session, it has given rise to a new momentum that I hope will be a glimpse into our future as we look towards the final weeks of the session, the August primary, and the 2016 general elections. What I saw leading up to first adjournment was the public raising more hell, and it got the response we needed.

A great example where hell-raising stopped the stampede was the legislation designed to move supervision of the state’s education finances from the Kansas Department of Education to the executive branch under the Office of Administration, a power grab of major proportions. Whether the fact that it’s an election year helped or not, the point is: the public, the press, and the experts spoke loud and clear. And this will be critical in the many important battles to come.

What made this particular example personal for me was the action taken to remove long-time expert on school finance, Dale Dennis, from participation on K-12 funding. Working out of the Department of Education, Dale has been—​for many decades—​the objective idea man and a supporter of constitutionally-solid school finance actions. I’ve known Dale starting with my legislative career in the 70’s and then through eight years as Governor working on school finance. He is clearly one of our all-time great career public servants whose talents have benefited public education in Kansas for many years. Though most Kansans would probably agree that his voice would be a valuable one to have in the conversation, he and other expert voices—​such as the educators and administrators themselves—​are often precisely the ones who are left out (or simply ignored) when considering how the state should proceed on these complex issues. From my point of view, this is where an informed and active citizenry can come into play. If elected officials don’t heed the many credible voices calling for a change of course, it’s up to the people of Kansas to raise the volume and raise the heat on those elected officials.

In order for it to translate to real change, an active response from the grassroots—​the hell raising—​has to be the beginning of a sustained, organized effort to make fundamental change in our Kansas Government. With the entire legislature up for election—​and the voting records clearly identifying those who backed the administration’s plans openly available—​there is no excuse for the 70% plus of Kansans who are upset with the Governor not to throw out his partners in crime. Consistent with our founding and the power of We the People, it will take the support of citizens who are working hard to educate their neighbors and get them out to vote for quality candidates committed to leading us out of the wilderness and “To the Stars through Difficulties.”

The ongoing financial crisis here in Kansas, which has apparently come as a surprise to some, is becoming much more real to others who are directly impacted. Though some are quick to either blame the Revenue Estimators or point to low commodity and livestock market prices and the plunge of oil and gas values to explain how we got into this mess, in reality, these economic factors are tied to cyclical ups and downs that we should have the capacity to weather if we managed well and made good fiscal policy decisions. Instead, one only has to go back a few years to the Governor’s great experiment to blow up what had been for decades a very successful tax policy.

Unfortunately, this experiment was nothing new. Trickle down economics has been tried, and has failed, many times before. So you wonder, if that is the case, then why would we implement something with a failed track record? I, along with many others, am beginning to believe that it was never intended to work—​that the silent objective was to slowly starve state government and use the complaints about government not delivering to cut government even more. There is no discussion from the far right Republican leadership in Topeka about corrective action being on the table. They are getting what I fear they wanted.

The March $17 million cut to public higher education in Kansas was tied directly to the February decline in revenue of about 50 million dollars. We now have less than four months to go in the 2016 fiscal year, meaning with each passing month there is less and less time to make adjustments to end the year in the black. As I mention in a previous blog post, the period after a major tax policy change is typically a challenging time to accurately predict revenue. So (as Duane Goossen of the Kansas Center for Economic Growth accurately points out), rather than blaming the Consensus Revenue Estimators, one must look at the tax policy itself and ask the following questions: What if there are further declines in revenue? What about the next fiscal year? When is the leadership in Topeka going to be honest with the people of Kansas, accept responsibility for making mistakes, and start us on the road back towards sanity?
​
These monthly financial shortfalls will likely continue, forcing more and more cuts to public education. And why do I say that? Financial management of the budget in recent years has ignored the value of following the law and having a reasonable surplus to deal with monthly declines in revenue that happen, even in good times. If the current administration had followed the law on carry-over, there would be no immediate crisis from declining February receipts. We would have budgeted something in the neighborhood of $750 million for such a purpose, and the $50 million decline would not have made headlines—​let alone resulted in the robbing of our state’s future in order to pay for the same old mistakes of the past.

Fortunately, for the moment, Kansas has received a stay on the elimination of our historically sound method for selecting Kansas Supreme Court Justices. This is thanks to the Democrats and Moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives. We have only time now to catch our breath before the war on sanity continues down the path to potential destruction of our beloved state of Kansas. I know some of you are probably wondering, why the strong language? The simple answer is: I’m not exaggerating.

Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down their decision on school finance, declaring the block grant approach put in place by Governor Brownback and his allies in the Legislature unconstitutional. This led to all sides putting the gloves on and signalling no backing down, including a rumor that the Legislature just might call the court’s bluff and leave town without doing the work required of them by our constitution. Keep in mind that current legislative leaders and the Governor were already at odds with the members of the Supreme Court and are now being ordered to do school finance right or they will shut down the school system, this is like high noon at the OK Corral.

To put this in a bigger picture, all of the above is happening in an election year where the entire Legislature is up for election and five of the seven Supreme Court Justices are up for retention vote in November. For the first time in our history, our judicial system—​built on the concept of being one of three equal branches of the government—​is facing potential for devastating results with huge impacts on the funding of public education. Key will be the public’s understanding of the importance of these events and their ability to accurately assess whether their legislators served their interest. Put another way, will they vote for legislative candidates who support the Kansas Constitution and the proper funding of public education?

​There will be more to share on this and also the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court as the year goes on towards Election Day on November 8th. But, for now, it’s safe to say—​at both the state and national level—​the judiciary will play a bigger role in this year’s election season conversation than perhaps any point in our history.

My last post discussed a recent example of citizens using their voices to raise issues, influence public officials, and bring about change. While the methods and avenues for civic engagement are new and evolving, grassroots efforts led by citizen leaders have been an essential part of our history and will play an increasingly important role in our future.

For instance, Women’s Suffrage was not brought about because men decided in their own circles to do what was right. Strong female leaders and much hard work over many years finally led to the change. The movements for Prohibition in our history were successful because of the ground game, not elected officials rationally discussing the change.

In fact, one of my best examples came out of a class discussion a couple of years ago in my spring Practical Politics class. The movie “Lincoln” had just been released, and I was using it as an example where the strong, creative leadership of the President had made it possible for the successful passage of the Emancipation Proclamation. An African American student respectfully, but with strong feeling, begged to differ. Without taking away any credit from Lincoln, this very bright student made it clear that without civic engagement in the strongest terms, there would have been no way the President could have been successful. It was another example that reinforced what I tell my students every semester: they won’t be the only ones in the classroom who are learning.

And then, in more contemporary times, the whole Civil Rights Movement was a citizen-led success story. Dr. Martin Luther King has his own holiday because of the progress he led, but it was the masses--the large number of women and men, of color and not--who persistently took action year after year that brought about the beginning of dramatic change that continues to this day.

Change is very difficult under any and almost all situations. My upcoming post will discuss some of the challenges faced by elected officials that make citizen involvement even more important today than in past decades. Whether it be the public support necessary to pass a local ballot initiative or a nationwide movement to bring comprehensive change, the role of the citizen is going to heavily determine our future.

For ten years, I taught an undergraduate class at K-State on what I called Practical Politics. I based it upon my understanding that politics was in every aspect of life from the church, to higher education, to community activity. Therefore, everyone would benefit from knowing some basic political skills. In teaching the class, we naturally talked a lot about elective politics. A common frustration of young folks would be how unlikely they see it for any public official to change their minds, regardless of what they as individuals thought. My response was always to let them know that public officials would change, but it would take a clear and unwavering message from the people to indicate that change was wanted and that their position would be reinforced come election day.

This year, in late June in South Carolina, we saw historically one of the most dramatic examples of this take place. Following the tragic murder of nine African Americans in church at a regular Wednesday evening prayer meeting, truly amazing things took place. First, all nine families of the slain publicly forgave the killer. And almost simultaneously, the public overwhelmingly reacted in an opposition to the Confederate flag continuing to be displayed on the Capitol grounds. The link tying these two events together was the killer’s use of the flag as a symbol motivating his action. Long a divisive issue, the flag had maintained significant public support. But now, almost overnight, huge numbers signed on to the online petition for removal. Numerous businesses, including national chain stores, announced they would no longer sell the flag, and public officials who were long defenders of the flag, were calling for its removal. South Carolina Republican Governor Haley led a bipartisan group of elected officials in announcing that the flag should come down. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, now a Presidential candidate, said publicly that knowing the nine families had forgiven the killer made it impossible for him to continue his support of the flag.

It was a dramatic example of citizens individually and collectively bringing dramatic change that no one could have predicted in advance. Obviously, in this case it took an unbelievable tragedy to spark the fire that swept the state and led to public officials quickly getting in line. Other changes needed can’t and shouldn’t wait for human tragedy to ignite action. We need citizens engaging in public dialogue on issues of importance, sharing changes for consideration, and building public support for change. Done in the public interest, it can help create an environment that influences public officials’ opinions as well as making it more politically attractive for them to be supportive.

As I think of my late father, I certainly want to share very positive greetings and best wishes for all fathers for Sunday’s Father’s Day Festivities. Linking back to what I said on Mother’s Day about Mom and her influence on me, I don’t want to leave my Dad out of the story. After all, he did drive us to Sunday School, drop us--including my sister--off at the church, and came back for regular church services, but never on time. He always said he pretty well understood the opening 20 minutes of a Lutheran liturgy and getting there in time for the sermon was good enough for him. More seriously, I share the following values where he had a huge positive impact.

Discipline: If I so much as squirmed in church, I could expect a painful snap in my ear, and not necessarily the closest one, as he would put his arm around me and boom. Then the other extreme, say prom night, there would be no curfew. If I was up to milk and do chores at 5:30 the next morning, it was fine with him. I liked his approach on the latter and learned from the former.

Work ethic: Helping milk cows seven days a week sort of makes the point. He set a great example as to work ethic, but in many ways he was not patient, so if I didn’t catch on quickly, he would just do it. Because I wasn’t instantly a good welder, I almost never got to weld. Then there were experiences like on a windmill, when he made it clear that if I had to hold on with both hands, I was no value to him. In addition to developing a strong work ethic, I learned the value of having patience when I interact with others, including young people today, as a way of helping them reach their full potential.  

Public service: Dad’s meager education (only son with four sisters) didn’t start in the fall until farm work was finished and ended quickly in the spring as soon as needed on the farm. Despite this, my Dad evolved into a very strong and effective leader at the local and state level. He was a strong leader on grade and high school boards of education and was President of the American Dairy Association of Kansas for many years. In addition, he served on the County Zoning Board and then, in retirement, was a significant fundraiser for Bethany College. There is no question that his example set the path for much of what I have done, and for that, I am forever grateful.

It’s that time of year, at all levels from grade school, high school, college, and even post-graduate education, that folks are graduating, moving on to another step in education, or out into that world of expectations. I offer my congratulations to every and all for the accomplishments of the day with best wishes for whatever comes next.

Over the years, I’ve given my share of commencement addresses with, at best, mixed results. For a long time, I’ve considered the challenge of speaking at a graduation ceremony as one of the toughest. For one thing, no one comes to hear the speaker. One is either fussing with the camera and plotting where best to stand, totally disconnected and wondering why one even attended, dreading the party that will follow, uncomfortable because someone insisted you dress up, and on and on. This all stands in contrast to the tremendous honor of the achievement. Of all the addresses I gave, there was only one that proved a real success. It was at the University of Kansas. I delivered my prepared text of just 45 seconds in length and got a standing ovation from the graduating seniors.

This year at Kansas State University, we are honoring Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum with an Honorary Doctorate in the Graduate School ceremonies. I consider Nancy a friend and one of Kansas’ very best public servants. I had the pleasure of working with her as Governor when she was serving in the United States Senate. I always remember how fair she was to work with and how respected she was by her fellow senators from both parties. Looking back, we were very lucky to have her service. She won a very close race in a nine candidate primary election, with only one other female candidate. I say that because we don’t have a runoff election when the winner gets less than 50% of the vote in a primary. Her closest competitor came in a very close second and might have won a runoff. But she won and the state and the country has benefited greatly from her service. We are also blessed with her return to reside in Kansas on her ranch in the Flint Hills. Thank you Nancy, and welcome back to Kansas State University.

As K-State Salina celebrates its beginning going back to 1965, I think back to my small role that few, if any, folks today remember. Why would they? It happened a long time ago and it certainly wasn’t K-State Salina at that time.

It was 1971, just six years after the Schilling Institute (soon to be called the Kansas Technology Institute or KTI) had been established by an act of the Kansas Legislature, that I found myself involved. But first let’s go back to the school’s beginning to set the stage. The Salina location, for WWII and the Korean War, was a very active and critically important air base (Schilling Air Force Base) for our country’s military needs. Following the active need of the base, the military function in the early 60’s was slowly phased out. The economic impact to the community was significant. Local legislators, led by Senator Ernie Strahan, were able to get the state to establish the Institute to fill a real need but also to help the local community.

However, after several years of limited enrollment and numerous legislative threats to reverse direction and close the Institute, we get to my first legislative session and March of 1971. I had left Topeka on a Friday to return to Smolan and my weekend responsibilities on our dairy farm. In fact, it was Saturday morning, milking, that I heard on the radio that after I had left Topeka, the Appropriations Committee had passed out a budget for KTI that called for the school to be closed in two years. This was not exactly good news for Salina or this freshman legislator.

Come Monday of the following week, in meeting with the Salina Legislative Delegation, it was decided (maybe because of my 4-H and public speaking background) that I should lead the fight on the floor of the House when the Committee recommendation came up for a vote. When that day came, my strategy was to tell a story about football recruiting at K-State with Coach Vince Gibson and at KU with Don Fambrough. Given that the main and only real argument against the school was declining enrollment, I drew the parallel between KTI’s challenges in recruiting students with the football coaches recruiting players. If either President McCain or Chancellor Chalmers would float a rumor about dropping football, wouldn’t that have impacted recruiting? How did they expect KTI to recruit given the regular talk from the Legislature about closing the school?

The story helped many people connect to the challenges at hand, and the appropriations language closing the school was amended out. Thanks to strong and innovative leadership at the school and the work of faculty and staff at KTI (and eventually Kansas State University), along with solid community support, we today have the opportunity to celebrate 50 years of significant success for K-State Salina and the state of Kansas.

For a video of this story and my commentary on the value of telling stories in any effort to make change, Click Here or check out all the Leading and Learning Moments on YouTube.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the current proposed cuts to higher education would devastate any institution right away. However, the scary thing is that this might only be the beginning as we, as a state, must come to terms with the impact of the Kansas “economic experiment” currently underway. There have been major shortfalls in revenue for the current fiscal year, and the two year budget for 2016 and 2017 is looking no better.   

Right now in Topeka, they are dealing with the huge gap, between resources available and budget needs, primarily through cuts. At some point, reality in the larger picture is going to become clearer. What that means is: we are either going to be discussing revenue enhancements (so far most of these, such as increased taxes on liquor and cigarettes, have been rejected), reversing the income tax cuts for the LLC folks, or making truly devastating cuts to public education—​which makes up more than 50% of the budget. Whether that be elementary through secondary or higher education, these cuts would be disastrous for our future.

The only realistic solution is a bigger pot of revenue, which means raising taxes. But keep in mind: this doesn't always mean more taxes but rather smarter taxation. When the cuts were made to income taxes, eliminating them for LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations), the effect was similar to sawing off one leg of a three-legged stool; it threw off the balance of other taxes and fees that make up the overall budget. This puts pressure on things like property taxes, state and local sales taxes, and tuition at public institutions to all be increased, and unfortunately, it leads to declining services in terms of both quality and delivery—​which, in reality, is also a cost.

The ultimate goal should be a fair mix of taxes, coupled with fiscal responsibility. It’s not just about the either/or of raising taxes or cutting budgets but finding a balance that best serves our people, such as putting the income tax leg back on the stool.

Thirty years ago in Kansas, cuts to public education were not even considered, much less was any traction for them received. Our research institutions for sure and education in general had strong support on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, and both floors—​executive and legislative. Yes, there were differences. Strong debates happened and working out final budgets took time, and occasionally, frustration dominated. But in the end, we did what was right by properly and reasonably funding education for the best interests of our state and our people.

For those who look at our major research universities—​the University of Kansas and Kansas State University—​and see the capacity to raise significant private money, one might ask why they don’t just turn to the private sector for the resources, if it is so critical. The answer is a little complex. Even though the state’s support for higher education at our Regent Institutions has dropped from as high as 50%, during my time in state government, and headed down to 20% and lower, that resource has been and will continue to be tapped, the current discussion aside. Making up for the resulting gap has been private money as well as higher and higher tuition. The capacity to raise private money has been impressive. I know here at K-State, in President Kirk Schulz and now General Richard Myers (who was previously serving as the chair of the university’s capital campaign), we have a phenomenal fundraiser who can connect very well with supporters of the university. ​But there are realistic and practical limits. Funding the cleaning of the restrooms is not a naming opportunity, but I think most would agree that it’s important.

Here is the other hard reality: the capacity to raise private money for existing gaps and critical needs could be seriously hampered if the core financial supporters saw declining state support as an albatross that could not be overcome. We have a better choice. The question is: will we have the wisdom to make it?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and Are We Reversing Our Direction on Research?

Up until recently, Kansas policies placed a high value on research and public education as key economic drivers for the state. Just think for a moment about some of the wise investments and tremendous progress Kansas has made in the area of research in the fairly recent past. We’ve invested millions of dollars in the University of Kansas Cancer Center to successfully achieve the National Cancer Institute Designation. Likewise, we’ve invested $250 million plus to establish the Bioscience Research Institute at Kansas State University and to successfully bring the National Bio Agro Defense Facility, NBAF, to Manhattan. These are both very important successes that have major research implications and potential huge economic benefit for the state.

Where I’m headed is asking the question, as time goes on, with Kansas showing a lack of appreciation for research and decreasing funding to our two major public research institutions: isn’t it likely that we will pay a major price at some point?

For KU, the Cancer Institute Designation that has brought earlier access for Kansans to the latest cancer treatments, will that continue? The NCI Designation was for five years and will have to be renewed. In the current environment, how good will we look for renewal and/or expansion of that valuable designation? I think of the huge effort to attract the scientists, build the infrastructure, and put together a plan to implement that not only got the designation desired but put us on the path to producing real, tangible results. Will that all be for naught?

For NBAF to reach its full potential as a major federal lab, the talent to go into the building will make a big difference. Attracting that talent to a state disrespecting the value of research and cutting resources for education at all levels will not be easy. The same can be said for the Bioscience Research Institute, built with much Federal help, to be a level three lab and smooth the transition of zoonotic research from Plum Island to Kansas. As an economic aside, the potential to attract future private and Federal investment would surely be impacted.

How, in just a few years, could we go from bipartisan, united political leadership at all levels to an environment that questions the value of research in general and has little appreciation for the linkage to economic success for Kansas and its people? Will we continue on this path?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.