Category: Education

Mutual Respect is a Critical First Step

4/7/2018

One of many lessons I teach students whenever the opportunity arises is the value of showing respect to anyone you seek to influence. This is particularly true in instances where you are trying to have an impact with someone who, you know in advance, vehemently disagrees with you. The reason of course is very simple. By being respectful, the conversation has potential to help get beyond your differences into learning more about your potential agreements and, ultimately, a compromise resolution to the conflict.

That is why the activism by the students of Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (and the millions nationwide who joined them) is so impressive. I hope you had a chance to listen to some of the speakers at the D.C. rally and take note at how respectful they were of those who obviously disagree. They aren’t turning cars over or breaking laws to make their point. They are focused on the right way to truly have an impact and, so far, have put many of their adult counterparts to shame when it comes to engaging civilly without personal attacks or distractions. They are taking their case to the American people and pushing any and all who agree to make their message heard in policy-making and on election day. I hope to see their approach and their tone continue as they work to engage elected officials through town hall events and other advocacy efforts. This will have lasting implications, not only for the gun policy discussion but also for the future engagement of a generation that’s beginning to find its voice and take a more active role in shaping the world around it.

That is also why I took notice of a piece written by David Brooks of the New York Times, entitled “Trust and respect first, then compromise on gun control,” published in a recent edition of the Manhattan Mercury. I have long liked Mr. Brooks, a sound, but sane conservative from the old school, someone who is always respectful of others. In this article, he shared about a process for bringing together a mixture of far right conservatives and clear liberals, with the goal of building respect among each other. Only after that is achieved can you have any chance of working out your differences and coming to some compromise that serves the greater good.

Clearly Washington D.C. could use some help, and this seems to flow down into other levels of government and into our international relations as well. You might have noticed in representing the United States at the winter Olympics, Vice President Pence chose to totally snub the sister of the President of North Korea. Now that might at first blush seem very logical. But when you think about their growing capacity to do us serious harm, maybe a step or two of respect might have been a good investment for future successful diplomacy. But enough from me. I really want you to take time to read the Brooks article. It is most timely on a variety of fronts and if applied could make a difference in resolving, or at least taking mini steps, on some of our major challenges where there are polar differences and little or no respect for each other.

Fortunately, the task of reviving civility has received more attention in recent years (with different organizations and resources coming together), and perhaps it can gain more traction as we continue the task of strengthening our democracy for the 21st century. Each of our daily exchanges will help write the story. But the true test will be our ability to come together and solve problems—both big and small—today and into the future.

1 Comment

Potential NBAF Move to USDA is Alarming

3/7/2018

2 Comments

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—the viruses that can move from animals to humans—need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—in a united fashion—push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.

This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

2 Comments

The 2018 Legislative Session and School Finance

1/18/2018

0 Comments

With Governor Brownback’s State of the State speech and the release of the Administration’s budget recommendations, we now have the opening of this year’s legislative session behind us. What makes this year totally unique are two factors not routinely in play. First, we don’t know how long it will be until we will have Governor Colyer—as we await news from the US Senate on Browback's confirmation effort. Second, the the Kansas Supreme Court and school finance hangs over the Capitol like a tornado on the horizon. To say this session will be a huge challenge is an understatement.

Early reaction says the budget that the Administration delivered was dead on arrival. Republicans, in particular, have led the negative response with a focus on the fact that the Governor had a nice sounding message but delivered it out of context. His avoidance of saying anything about how the state should pay for his recommendations was particularly offensive to almost all legislators. This was particularly upsetting to those who voted for tax adjustments last year in efforts to start addressing the fiscal crisis tied to the failed Brownback tax experiment.

So where are we? First let us look back to last year for a moment. As you know, very significant progress was made that included overriding the Governor’s veto on a tax plan that took a significant step in restoring much needed funds. The downside was that it was not enough to fund a reasonably full recovery. Too many legislators, as well as special interest groups, were a little too anxious to get anything close to what is needed. In the process, they likely left some important resources on the table that could have lessened the existing fiscal pressure.

Despite the progress, the Kansas Supreme Court has made it clear that even with the additional funding, it is not adequate. Their position is based on their interpretation of the Kansas Constitution regarding the state’s role in funding public education. Additionally, those who have never supported increasing education resources will be pressing for a Constitutional amendment that basically takes the Court out of any jurisdiction on school funding. Given the required ⅔ vote from both Houses, that is unlikely to happen.

Next are the political realities. Last year’s progress on school funding and the budget was clearly a heavy lift. Now we are in an election year, with the entire House up for re-election. Also, it is easy to assume that whatever tax bill reaches the Governor's desk, regardless of who is Governor, will be vetoed. There were no extra votes in last year's override. Given that fact, the likelihood of a repeat in 2018 is very slim. In addition, why would all the newly-elected members who were there for the 2017 override vote for another tax bill that, logic says, will not pass?

So where does all of this leave us? At the moment, I see no traditional answer to this constitutional crisis. My dream would be a Supreme Court that is willing to talk privately to legislative leaders from both parties about the realities that they face. Then, out of that, would come a compromise that spreads the mandated funding increase over a reasonable period of time. This might allow the money that became available from last year’s effort to be adequate to meet the first year’s commitment and then begin down a multi-year path towards meeting our constitutional commitment to public education. Although, I understand when your response is “dream on.”

0 Comments

Deficit Concerns Won’t Slow the GOP’s Trickle Down Trainwreck

12/18/2017

0 Comments

While still absorbing the devastating tax changes from the Republicans in Congress, we are now seeing the next low blow to the working class of America. Remember how the tax bill over time added to the deficit in the trillions? This raised questions on where the so-called “deficit hawk” Republicans have gone. But now we are learning what they are really up to. With the votes apparently in hand on the tax issue (providing the rich huge benefits), they have developed a new concern about the deficit. And, when the bill they're working to pass doesn't generate enough revenue in economic growth to pay for itself—which is the classic defense used in Kansas and other places to justify implementing these trickle down trainwrecks—their answer will be to go after the entitlements, the so-called “give away” to Americans who “won’t work and/or save for their future.”

Medicare, Medicaid, and eventually Social Security suddenly now become serious targets for those who, for a long time, thought the government was doing too much for the people. Particularly now that their fiscal nightmare of a bill seems in line to pass, they say they have real concerns about the deficit. If young and extended families, particularly with children, don’t start making their case, their future becomes much more dicey. These young families face expensive child care (in most cases they both have to work to make the family budget), exploding health care costs, and student loan payments or other costs to educating themselves for the future. At the same time, salary increases are in no way adequate to cover these realities. On this one, both parties share the blame. Republicans want to privatize entitlement programs to cover up their real goal: to shut them down. Democrats defend the programs as is and have yet to address the challenges demanded by demographic reality. With folks living longer and the balance between retirees and workers changing, without changes to these programs, the end comes at some point down the line.

This is also what you get when you have a Supreme Court deciding that the very rich should have no limit as to how much they can spend to elect who they want and to get from them what they claim they need. They certainly should have a right to contribute and make their case, but it should be done on the merits, without the big-money artillery pointed directly at the elected person’s future. As a result, we now have relatively few Billionaires basically running the country into the ground, with only them benefiting from their trickle down philosophy.

So what do rank-and-file Americans do? Yelling and screaming to our family, friends, and anybody within shouting distance will not get it done. Giving up, ignoring what is going on, certainly will not help. Not registering to vote and/or not voting works right into the hands of those who are currently benefiting from the system as it is. We must, as I’ve said before, take our frustration into action.

Therefore, find forward-thinking candidates who understand the value of wisely investing and responsibly taking care of those in need, and help them get elected. Doing that begins the process of shaping tomorrow into the future we all want and need.

0 Comments

Reflecting on Governor Brownback's Six Plus Years

9/28/2017

5 Comments

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

5 Comments

Charlottesville and the Response From Higher Education

8/16/2017

0 Comments

It is hard to find the appropriate words to express one's reaction to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend. White supremacy and Nazism have no place in our country, and I am shocked and disgusted at the thought that any President of the United States would fail to denounce them and make it clear that those are not the values of our country.

One area that I will be paying close attention to, especially as we approach a new school year, is the reaction on our college campuses, which will be directly impacted by the situation in Charlottesville and at the University of Virginia. I have come across a few messages that cover well what I would want to say. And, as I’ve done before on my blog, if someone else has said it better, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

So I have shared a few excerpts and links to the full messages below:

One message is from our former K-State President, Kirk Schulz, now at Washington State University:
“As a higher education leader, there is no way to reconcile the work that we do with violence and hate…The senior leadership team at Washington State University is united—we strongly denounce racism and Nazism of any kind and condemn the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hate has no place at WSU…
…We also believe in the mission and purpose of higher education. As vile and offensive as we find certain speech and individuals who hold those beliefs, we are committed to wrestling with, challenging, and combating racism and anti-Semitism to become the community WSU must be. It is not just about our campuses—it is about our nation’s future…WSU is a microcosm of what is happening throughout our nation. Our work begins at home…”

Another message is from the new Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Douglas A. Girod:
“…Like many of you, we were horrified at the sight of white supremacists with racist and hate-filled messages marching on a university campus...As faculty, staff, and students return to Mount Oread this week, we will apply ourselves to discussing how we can continue to confront hatred and bigotry, both through our scholarship and efforts outside the classroom. More broadly, we will commit ourselves to our ongoing work to address diversity and inclusion on our campuses, and to ensure that all Jayhawks feel valued and welcome here.
The University of Kansas is a marketplace of ideas. We will–and should–have difficult conversations and disagreements with each other on complicated topics. But racism, intolerance, and hatred–and violence borne of those views–are never acceptable at KU and, in fact, are antithetical to our values as a university. We pledge to work with all of you to ensure we live up to those values and do our part to condemn and confront prejudice and hate wherever they exist.”

The final one comes from the President of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Peter McPherson:
“…Precisely because public universities are and always must remain committed to free speech, hate groups have aimed to turn campuses into flashpoints. What’s more, public universities have a large number of students who may well protest hate speech. Hate groups know their demonstrations, including violent ones, can and do spark a spectacle and ultimately draw attention to their hateful views.
Still, we must denounce their hateful rhetoric. The First Amendment is not just a right. It’s also a responsibility. We must speak out against evil, hateful beliefs through free speech of our own that advances the shared American value of equality. The struggle against hate will only be won through education and public understanding.”

Each of these messages make it clear that Higher Ed leaders are stepping up to the challenges we face. And, as a Wildcat, I know that our leadership and the entire Wildcat Nation join in these concerns so passionately expressed. And, as students of all ages return to school in Kansas and across the country, it is important that they enter in a welcoming environment that is focused on their success. They are the future, and it is critical that they learn from these challenging times, live out our country’s values, and continue working toward the ideals of our founding.

0 Comments

The Mandela Washington Fellowship at K-State

7/27/2017

0 Comments

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—here at K-State and in Kansas—would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—as our country has historically done—appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.

It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

0 Comments

Taxes Likely to be the Big Issue in the 2018 Kansas Elections

7/6/2017

1 Comment

With Sine Die adjournment of the 2017 Kansas Legislative Session, it is only natural that many turn their interests to the 2018 election, particularly regarding legislators and how they voted on the tax override. Set aside for now the pending Supreme Court ruling that the existing funding for education is likely inadequate. My interest here is reminding voters of two things. One: past tax cuts, started before Governor Brownback but taken to off the chart levels under his leadership, have seriously eroded our capacity to fund key investments. Two: the objective should always be finding the right level of taxes and funding that make the best investment for the state and the taxpayers.

The Koch operation held their annual planning meeting a few weeks back in Colorado to brainstorm strategies for 2018, which is a clear sign that the politics of these decisions will soon be front and center in the discussion. And you can be assured they weren’t focusing on helping supporters of proper funding levels for education and wise investments in infrastructure and other state services. They are looking for ways to not just slow the erosion of far-right support but return it to the strength of earlier years, when these special interests had their way in Topeka and other state capitals across the country. Keep in mind they are big backers of the Kansas State Chamber of Commerce who, under current management, think much like the Koch’s think and are still bought in to the idea that somehow, despite all the evidence, trickle down economics works.

My advice to those who voted for the taxes, including the motion to override Governor Brownback's veto, is to embrace what you did and the action taken to return the state to a more solid financial footing. For some legislators who promised in their campaign that they would support more dollars for education and highways, remind voters that you delivered. Not bringing up the issue will just not work, and you end up losing from both sides. Key to your message is further educating voters on the wisdom of finding the right level of support for quality public education, plus the dollars needed for highway maintenance. The negative tax impacts will always be greater when investments do not meet the state’s needs.

Because the need to find a productive level of funding seems so natural, one wonders why so many very conservative legislators can not bring themselves to ever support a tax increase. They have to know, given their agriculture and business backgrounds, that cutting too far makes no sense and leads to poor outcomes. One explanation that may answer some of this puzzle on the issue of education is that many conservative legislators are strong supporters of private education and homeschooling and would support public tax dollars going to these sources. Not properly funding public education leads to declining quality, which can encourage families to consider private education options. Maybe those ulterior motives explain their lack of support for public education. However, that approach to public budgeting only devalues the investments that the state has already made in its public school system, infrastructure, and many other areas.

And to those who very much wanted the results we got from the Legislature, now is not the time to assume the issues we’ve experienced are resolved. We need to make it clear that we very much support the courageous legislators who voted to override the veto and that we will be there with resources and help to support their reelection. It would be a huge setback for Kansas to have made this giant step forward and have it reversed as a result of the 2018 election. That could happen if common sense, moderate legislators are not successful, which will allow very narrow, backward special interests to prevail at the expense of Kansans.

1 Comment

A Great Night for the Future of Kansas

6/7/2017

3 Comments

Last night, the Kansas Legislature overrode the Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 30 on taxes and, in so doing, restored credibility to the funding of state government. This tax bill will have a huge positive impact on the future of the state. The flawed Brownback experiment is over. It is very hard to overstate this fact. This bill includes a significant step in funding public education (more on this later). It should eliminate any need to continue to rob from the Department of Transportation, which will help restore funding of maintenance for our highway system. It will restore credibility to our state finances and should help the state’s credit rating. It will put a stop to the steady decline of support for funding state government and, to the credit of the Democrats who held out for a tax credit for Child Care, many young families will be helped.

At long last, the road to recovery begins, but it’s important to remember that this didn’t just happen by chance. It was possible because in 2016 the citizens of Kansas elected a much better legislature, and then they stayed engaged throughout a long and challenging session. It also happened because key leaders in both parties listened to their constituents, stepped up, and made the future of Kansas a top priority. That is why the votes were there to override the Governor’s veto. Raising revenue is never easy, and for some Republicans, going against their own Speaker and their own Governor was difficult. However, for the benefit of the entire country, the case of the failed Kansas fiscal experiment has proven (once again) that trickle-down economics does not work, and when voters are aware of the facts and realities, common sense and reason can prevail over rigid ideology and political entrenchment. In other words, facts matter. And, in the future, Kansas can continue to be a model for how to engage and overcome regressive policies and the “alternative facts” used to sell them.

The key leaders in the Senate were Senator Jeff Longbine, the elected Vice President of the Senate, and Minority Leader Senator Anthony Hensley. Very early in the process, they set aside partisan differences and openly worked together getting the necessary support in the Senate. In the House, I start with calling attention to the leadership of the tax committee, where much of the specifics were worked. Chair Steven Johnson and Ranking Minority member Tom Sawyer respected each other and closely worked together from the start, not always agreeing but always committed to a good final result. I also salute Majority Leader Don Hineman and Minority Leader Jim Ward. Don had the challenge of leading the Republicans with the Speaker who, except for the final vote, was against him. For Jim, keeping (for the most part) the 40 Democrats together (they all voted to override) was a challenge but key in getting 63 votes initially and 84 in the end. And the final critical component was the bipartisan Women's Caucus, who came together to work on a compromise that significantly influenced the bill that is now law. All Kansans can be grateful for and proud of their leadership.

I share this knowing many important decisions remain. But last night has made it possible for those decisions to be good for Kansas. I will close with this point. As I have shared many times, elections do have consequences. This great achievement would not have happened without the voters electing who they did in 2016. Keep that in mind as we move forward with the elections coming up in 2018 for both Governor and the House of Representatives.

3 Comments

Overtime for the Kansas Legislature

5/26/2017

1 Comment

With the Legislature off for a four day holiday break, where are we with the Kansas Legislative Session? It certainly can be argued that, despite the amount of time in session, almost no major decisions have been made. This includes the budget, school finance, restoring the needed revenue, changes to the concealed carry law (particularly for state hospitals), and probably several other Bills that tend to get lost in the focus on high profile issues.

It is easy at this point to be critical. You certainly have enough evidence to do so. But it must be kept in mind, as I’ve said before, our Founding Fathers did not want a simple system. They did not want it to be easy to make change, and they were certainly successful. Keep in mind also that, if there were a more reasonable occupant of the second floor, final adjournment of the 2017 Legislative Session would be long past. But that is not the case, which means on almost all these key issues, a two-thirds vote in both Houses is needed to pass and override the all-too-certain veto.

So where are we come next Tuesday when the legislature is back in session? We have a pending Supreme Court decision on School Finance Funding hanging over any budget and/or tax action. We have many frustrated legislators anxious to get back to the rest of their lives and many factions within the Legislature that further complicate the situation.

So how can I in any way express optimism that perhaps sunshine and hope is just around the corner? Well, for one thing, I’ve been impressed with some really strong leadership in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle, especially with the aisle being less of a barrier. Also, I have been impressed with many of the new faces who wisely believe in investing in the future.

I will close with another reminder that, in the whole scheme of things, individual citizens can and should play significant roles shaping policy decisions. It is not enough to be registered and actually vote. You must be engaged with what is going on, so you can share your views and concerns with those elected to represent you. So, on this holiday weekend, we must find time to show appreciation to those who are voting for the future we want and encourage others to understand that making wise investments will be essential to the future of our state.

1 Comment

Solving the Kansas Budget Crisis

5/9/2017

2 Comments

Well the Legislature is back in Topeka, and surprise, surprise there is much talk about taxes and the budget and how to resolve these two key issues that will impact the state going forward. I made it clear in a previous blog, which assessed this Legislative Session up to the first adjournment, that it was not surprising that the major issues would still be around for the month of May. And here we are now, and the pressure is on.

Yesterday, a message went out from four former Kansas Governors. The message sums up very well the challenge and importance of getting the tax and budget resolutions done in a way that best addresses the real problems we face. As stated, ”half measures and quick fixes won’t get the job done.” There will always be political hurdles to raising taxes, even when done part-way. So why not have something very positive to show for the effort and the risk taken? Not going far enough will, for example, lead to continued robbing of the highway fund to get by and will guarantee even more negative results for the state. Truly solving the budget crisis will require bipartisan cooperation and courage to do what is in the best long-term interest of the state, and I hope that this experienced perspective from our former Governors of both parties can help encourage legislators to govern the state not just for the next election but for the future of all Kansans.

What I want to add is this: A big problem in underfunding key services is that the taxpayer in many ways will, over time, find themselves in an even worse financial situation. You can read more about this in my blog post, “Lower Taxes Aren’t Always Lower.” But the bottom line point is that properly funding schools and taking care of our infrastructure are wise investments for communities and the State of Kansas. When not adequately done, the quality of public school declines and highway maintenance gets far behind—which only leads to even higher costs to repair and replace that neglected infrastructure down the road. All the while, the tax burden remains (or even increases) while communities and the state decline. You find businesses not wanting to stay or expand in Kansas, and your best talent looks elsewhere to raise a family and serve their economic needs.

What surprises me most is who some of the opponents of properly funding education and infrastructure are. They present themselves as sound conservatives who look at these issues through a business investment perspective. But, for some reason, they don’t make the transfer of sound investment in business to funding our infrastructure and public education. Until recently, the modern state has always played a very important role in funding these two key needs. To fail now will severely harm our future, and the negative impacts will only multiply over time.

Please join us former Governors and many other responsible leaders in both political parties in expressing support for both the repeal of the LLC exemption and amending the tax structure to raise the money that will fund the budget deficit. Write, call, email, visit, post, whatever you can do to engage legislators who may be on the fence and thank those who are working cooperatively and courageously to solve problems in the best long-term interest of the state. Let the legislators know there is strong support for wisely investing in education and infrastructure; your persistence could make the difference.

2 Comments

The Last of Laffer: Learning From the Failed Kansas Experiment

4/26/2017

3 Comments

According to a story today in the New York Times, the President’s tax proposal being informally presented today brings back the Laffer Curve—first shared by Arthur Laffer to key Republicans in 1974, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. But most important to Kansans is the Laffer-Brownback partnership on tax reform that has brought us the financial disaster of the last five years.

That brilliant move has wrecked school finance funding, cut highway maintenance to a bare minimum, and in general put many very needed state programs in financial stress. As William Allen White once said: “When anything is going to happen in this country, it happens first in Kansas.” In this case, it is the blowback from our trickle down experiment that ought to send a message to Washington policymakers that this dog just won’t hunt. For more on this idea, you can read my blog post about the next story to “happen first in Kansas.”

It will be interesting how the Kansas Congressional delegation reacts. They not only have the benefit of knowing how the curve didn’t work in Kansas but also the election results of 2016, which made it clear that voters are also aware of its failures, and they acted accordingly. Tax reform should be on the Washington agenda. What we need is the President bringing together key members of Congress of both parties with different approaches and challenging them to work for real and sane reform. I know how unrealistic that might be, but we as citizens need to be pleading for that direction.

In the coming years, I believe the Kansas Legislature—and our state in general—could become a model for needed change in this country, by showing how to engage and overcome these failed policy ideas and deal with their disastrous results. And so, with a little encouragement from the people of Kansas, we have the opportunity to make William Allen White right again.

3 Comments

Guns in the Medical Center?

3/16/2017

2 Comments

Before the Legislature’s week off earlier this month, in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, legislation was voted on to exempt the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) from the July 1 implementation of guns being legally allowed into university buildings—in addition to public hospitals and mental health clinics. The vote was 11 to 11, with the Chair abstaining, keeping the legislation in committee. If this is a signal that the House leadership doesn’t want this legislation to pass, it will make any further efforts later in the session much more difficult.

I already have serious concerns about concealed guns coming into classrooms at our colleges and universities. Unfortunately, given this earlier vote, it is clear for now that there will very likely be no change for higher education before July 1. In fact, the House has in committee a bill stripping any flexibility from institutions developing their own policy of implementation. But for today, my focus is on the Medical Center, where the issue takes on a whole new life.

I understand the strong beliefs that many have about access and citizen use of firearms. Repealing the Second Amendment has never seriously been discussed and is definitely not going to happen, but the threat of it remains a valuable weapon of use by the National Rifle Association to successfully impact elections. Hunting is accepted as appropriate by most Kansans for sure. And being able to have guns to protect yourself and your family certainly has majority support. But what we are talking about here with KUMC is a totally different breed of cats.

Regardless of how one might feel on this issue in theory, it would seem to me that sane people could understand why KUMC has practical and economic concerns. They have competition from medical centers just across the state line that are understandably taking doctors and patients away from KUMC because of the gun issue. I know from years of experience dealing with KUMC how difficult it is to fulfill its mission, serve the needs of the public, and do so in a way where the dollar numbers work out.

As a state, we’ve invested in helping KUMC to achieve the National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation which, in turn, has helped our citizens access experimental drugs and has, no doubt, saved lives. Renewal of the NCI designation is currently in process, and this looming issue, which impacts both staffing and the bottom line, is certainly of no help.

Why would anyone see any advantage in having guns brought into KUMC? The current policy of prohibiting concealed weapons certainly has a positive record. Please speak up and let your legislators know that there is support for responsible legislative action on guns and that you will be there to back them up against any blowback from the NRA or other gun rights groups. The NRA has seemingly endless amounts of money, but the people of Kansas have their brains, their hearts, their voices, and their votes. A declining KUMC not only stifles further innovation in the medical field, it also means that Kansans will have to go further for some of their most critical medical needs.

2 Comments

DeVos and Public Education are Like Oil and Water

2/1/2017

7 Comments

Public education is critical to our democracy, but there is no real evidence that Betsy DeVos has any commitment to its mission of education and equal opportunity for all students.

Mr. President, why appoint a 100% private education advocate to run the Department of Education? I know the Cabinet at large was looking too white and too male, but surely you could have found someone who thinks public education is important today and in our future. Whether competent or not, it would at least look better.

To our Senators from Kansas, one of whom has already approved her for confirmation in a committee vote, a reminder that Kansans of all political stripes support public education. If you vote for her on the floor of the Senate, which is a choice you have, don’t ever come back to Kansas and say you support public education, because you don’t.

Kansas school districts have unique challenges, and federal support can play a role in addressing them. Yes, most of the responsibility for public schools is with the states and local school districts, as it should be. But there are key areas where the input and resources can make a difference, like with the Junction City school system for example where the presence of Fort Riley brings additional challenges. The same goes for our rural school districts as well. Also, because education is so critical to our nation’s future, it makes total sense that there be a national leadership role, not just monitoring but helping lead reform measures to improve the system nationwide.

Ms. DeVos is as pure a private education advocate as one could find anywhere in the United States. Her only experience at any level is with private schools. In addition, she is a strong supporter of having guns in our schools, and when asked for her reasoning, she said you never know when a grizzly bear might show up in the classroom. Well, I’d encourage her to listen to what teachers have to say on this issue and many others. I have a feeling most would agree that DeVos herself poses a much greater threat to our schools than grizzly bear attacks do.

What I suspect, and fear, is that this is just the first move toward abolishing the Department of Education. If she’s confirmed, it will not surprise me at all if Ms. DeVos finds all sorts of “problems” with the Department and “reluctantly” comes to the President recommending it be shut down. The future of “education for all” is directly at stake in this upcoming vote. Every Senate Democrat and two Republicans have already agreed to vote “no.” Will there be others who join them to stand up for public education?

The number to the Congressional Switchboard is (202) 225-3121. Your engagement could make the difference.

7 Comments

Vote 'Yes' on Judicial Retention

10/26/2016

2 Comments

As I hope many Kansans know, there is an organized and heavily financed effort to throw out four of the five Justices up for retention on the Kansas Supreme Court and six Judges on the Court of Appeals. Frustrated by the Court supporting the Kansas Constitution on proper funding of public education, the effort is driven by special interests who see an opportunity to lock the courts into a far, far right position for as many as thirty years. Our current system of selecting judges based upon merit has served us well for sixty years. The retention clause in our system is there as a safeguard but, fortunately, has never been needed. We have a 100% record of retaining our Judges because the current merit system has brought quality and balance to the bench.

So if the system is so good, what really is the problem? First, the Kansas Legislature, working with the Governor, successfully changed the law for the appointment of Court of Appeals Judges. They moved away from merit selection to allowing the Governor to appoint whomever he wants, subject to Senate confirmation. Second, the merit selection system for the Supreme Court is now in control of the Governor. He has made four citizen appointments to the nine member Merit Selection Commission and, by neglect of the Kansas Bar allowed, in essence, the appointment of the fifth and final lawyer to chair and have control of the Commission.

The Carr brothers case out of Wichita, one of the most gruesome multiple murder cases in Kansas, is being used to drive emotions and create opposition to retention. This happened in 2000, and there has never been any doubt the brothers were guilty. They were sentenced to death. As is usual, the long delay in carrying out the death penalty has made a very painful path to closure for the family and friends of the victims. The dispute between our Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court was over a technicality, but there has never been any doubt that the Carr brothers will die on death row.

The bottom line and key point is: why would we oppose retention when opposition is totally unjustified? The current Justices have a superb record. They are not opposed to the death penalty, as some charge. They have upheld the constitutionality of the Act on several occasions, including recently with the Robinson case. But the major thing to know, understand, and spread is that if special interest groups are successful in throwing out these judges, it will politicize the courts and assure that merit selection will be replaced by money and political influence. We will leave behind our historical fairness where individual citizens' rights are protected, free from the influence of money and political pressure. VOTE YES ON RETENTION.

2 Comments

The "Home Stretch" Before November 8th

10/3/2016

0 Comments

In the coming days, our efforts or lack thereof will determine the future of Kansas for decades to come. After years of frustrating, unfair, and short-sighted policies from Topeka, the people of Kansas have only a few days left to make their point and have their voices heard on the direction of the state. There are key decisions to be made in both the legislative and judicial branches of government on this year’s ballot, and voters statewide will need to know their alternatives and realize just what’s at stake in each race. In many cases, it comes down to voters deciding whether to approve or reject the current actions and direction of each branch. With the help of the executive branch—the administration of Governor Brownback—the Kansas Legislature has been the source of extreme and experimental policies that puzzle the common sense voter, defy our long history of balanced policy and consensus-building leadership, and make a laughing stock out of the state that many of us know and love. Meanwhile, the Kansas Judicial Branch has been working to uphold the Kansas Constitution and, despite the best efforts of the other two branches, maintain their standing as an independent third branch of government, separate from partisan politics. From looking at the direction of each, I believe it’s easy to see why we need to bring change to the legislative branch and keep the judicial branch exactly the way it is.

Here is where you come into play. It starts with sorting out the good from the bad and deciding who to support. There are many ways to make your choice, but first do your own investigation. You can look into the candidates through local news media or events in your area where you can hear from the candidates directly. You can also check out a number of organizations partnering with the Save Kansas Coalition who have published questionnaires or made endorsements (such as Game on For Kansas Schools and Women For Kansas), and you will likely find them agreeing on which candidates would work towards solving problems in a cooperative, bipartisan way. Or you could look for the candidate who favors the status quo and the current direction, by investigating who the State Chamber endorses, and then I’d advise you to give strong consideration to their opponent. This special interest group backed all the legislators who partnered with the Governor to damage our schools, our infrastructure, our rural hospitals, our judicial system, and unfortunately, the list could go on. Now they're working to lead a barrage of false and misleading attacks on quality candidates and the qualified Judges and Justices of the Kansas Judicial Branch.

After determining who to support, what can each and every one of us do to help quality candidates win on November 8th? Whether through valuable volunteer hours, financial support, or other voter outreach and education, there are a number of ways to get involved, and there is a role for everyone in this process. First, candidates always need good volunteers in order to have an army of support in the closing weeks that will help offset the overwhelming money advantage the opposition has. Just a few hours spent contacting voters, knocking on doors, or attending events can help reach people and get everyone out to vote. Go out and enjoy the camaraderie of being with others and supporting a cause you care about; it’s a great example of civic engagement wherein each and every citizen can make a real difference. If you’re able to provide it, monetary support is also something that candidates will need to help offset the millions coming from special interests, much of it from out of state. In this internet age, it is easy to find where to donate online, send a check, or attend an upcoming fundraiser. And, as proven recently by the Bernie Sanders campaign, even small contributions can make a big impact. Finally, as you make your decision on who to support, it is important to help others along in this process. For those who have followed the recent events at the statehouse, the decisions are often very clear, but people are busy and there are many eligible voters out there who may be looking into these issues for the first time. This makes any efforts to reach family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with information on these important decisions absolutely critical. Remember: many of these races will come down to each and every vote.

Important Dates to Know:
October 18th - The final day to register to Vote in Kansas. Check your registration status here, and make sure everyone you know is registered by this day!
October 19th - Most Advanced Ballots are mailed if you've already submitted an application to your County Clerk. Early voting in-person will also begin in many Kansas counties, check with your local County Clerk for details about early voting in your county!
November 4th - The final day to register for an Advanced Ballot by Mail. The application form is due to the County Clerk in the county you'll be voting in (see the second page of the form for their contact information).
November 7th - Advanced voting in-person ends on this day. Check with your County Clerk to find information about in-person opportunities to vote early before this day!
November 8th - Election Day! Most polls are open from 7am to 7pm at your local precinct location, find your polling place here. All Advanced Ballots by Mail are also due by the close of polls on Election Day.

We have reached the “home stretch” of this election year, and your engagement can make all the difference. The future of Kansas depends on it.

0 Comments

Words and Their Impact

9/21/2016

7 Comments

Last week, I received a copy of a message that William Jones, President of Bethany College, shared with his Bethany College family and the Lindsborg community in response to the racially-charged threats aimed at him and his family. Having grown up in that area—I attended high school in Lindsborg and watched my father serve as a very successful volunteer fundraiser for Bethany College—this incident hits me on a deeply personal level. As well as the obvious disgust to learn that such racist actions are going on, the potential impacts are way beyond upsetting and are making folks feel unsafe in this small, tight-knit community. Apparently, because of Bethany’s success in recruiting minority students, a small faction want to shut the college down. Although the college is rightfully doing their best to protect free speech and avoid any connection to politics, I understand the folks responsible for the threats have made very clear their political leanings—going so far as to shift the message of their chosen Presidential candidate into the despicable phrase, “Make Lindsborg white again.”

Though, as a country, we have made strides towards our founding belief that all people are created equal, the way this progress is perceived, disseminated to, and acted upon by the general public has often reminded us just how much work remains—on both a systemic and grassroots level. We have grown more conscious of intolerance and injustice and demanded greater respect for our historically-marginalized communities, but yet, hateful messages and actions persist in many ways and all across the country. So how have we arrived here, and what can we do about it? I do not pretend to know for sure with great accuracy. But I know we have had disagreements over the direction of our communities and our country throughout history and have been able to discuss these issues civilly within our political sphere. Today, I worry that this ability may be eroding, and these problems are only made worse by the intolerant rhetoric spewing outward from the Presidential election.

I understand there is blame to go around—in truth, no one is without some responsibility. But when Donald Trump suggests that the Secret Service guarding Hillary Clinton should not be armed, just to “see what might happen,” I fear we have done more than just reach a new low in this Presidential race. I believe we have, in essence, authorized politically compatible citizens—who in many cases are legitimately frustrated Americans—to take actions that were never before thought as acceptable for any person.

At a time when we should be debating the best way to grow the economy, take care of our infrastructure, deal with the challenge of immigration, and preserve our nation’s security—just to name a few—instead what we see all too often looks like a food fight. This was made possible by irresponsible Republican candidates who failed to step up and seriously challenge the Donald. And, of course, the press always likes a horse race, so they did their best to provide him with as much free publicity as possible. But the outcome of this election will be decided by the people—one-by-one—who enter the voting booth, and before they do so, I strongly urge them to consider this question: Do we really want to elect a President whose primary “accomplishment” so far has been to bring out the worst in us?

All of this is now playing out in the area where I grew up—the place I originally learned the importance of community and the value of mutual respect. I have been encouraged by the response from the Lindsborg and Bethany College community, who have rallied around their leader and his family to affirm their support for a more inclusive campus and community. Though this supportive response doesn’t come as a surprise to me, I believe it sends a strong message to those who spew hate that the revolting actions they have threatened will not be tolerated. I also want to believe that come November 8th we will have significant positive results, so the message of darkness will have suffered a setback and, as a country and a state, we will have some hope for a stronger, more united future.

7 Comments

Judicial Retention is Vital for Kansas

9/8/2016

3 Comments

Hopefully, former Kansas Governors traveling the state in the last two days on this issue has caught your attention. Four of the five living former Governors, two Republicans and two Democrats (Governor Parkinson had a conflict but is supportive), have come together to speak out on the huge importance of retaining the five Supreme Court Justices up for a vote come November 8th. I trust you understand that we wouldn’t be doing this if it was anything close to a “toss-up” issue. It is critical that Kansas voters cast their ballots to maintain the integrity of our Judicial branch and defend it from partisan politics.

The question on the ballot will be whether you, as a voter, want to individually retain each of the five Justices up for retention. Retention is part of the time-tested judicial selection process that is currently under attack in Kansas. Having an option, in extraordinary cases, where removal is possible obviously makes sense. We do have mandatory retirement, so judicial appointments are not for life. What is different in this particular election is the organized effort to remove all but one, in appearance, based almost exclusively on one case handled by the court. But here is the real issue. What the opponents of retention really want, and why so much money will be thrown at this from special interests, is for Governor Brownback to have the opportunity to appoint five of the seven members of the Supreme Court, packing the court with far-right conservative judges. What does that mean for us? It means we will have an extreme approach, totally foreign to what we have experienced in Kansas for decades. There will no longer be push-back when a Legislature and a Governor refuse to properly fund public education. There are good reasons that our Kansas “Founding Fathers” put public education as a priority into our Kansas Constitution, but a far-right court has the power to neuter that charge.

Here is the broader case for retention. The judicial system we have in Kansas has worked in a very satisfactory way for decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Why is this the case? First of all, we have an excellent system of screening and providing Governor’s with a quality list of three candidates from which to select. This is true for not just the Supreme Court, but also for the Court of Appeals and appointed District Judges. Screening commissions are made up of appointments from the Kansas Bar Association as well as appointments from the Governor. For me and my former Governor colleagues, it was important to not just appoint high quality men and women to screening commissions but to also, without interference, let them do their job. Merit has dominated the selection process and it is why our system has had such a good reputation. That is, until the Brownback Administration, when the strategy became obvious to stack the court with right wing idealogues holding complete loyalty to the Governor and his agenda.

From a political point of view, if retention fights become the norm, it puts Judges in an untenable situation. How do they defend themselves? Do we want Judges to have to raise money to literally campaign for retention? If we start throwing out Justices over say one controversial case, how can this approach do anything but lower the quality of justice for all? Not only will highly qualified future candidates think longer about leaving a successful law practice, but worse yet, Justices, being human, may start calculating in the issue of retention as they decide cases. All of this runs counter to the purpose of an equal and independent branch of government to “check and balance” the other branches.

Contrast our current and successful judicial selection system with states where, historically, politics dominate and money has a huge influence on who makes it to the bench. You have not only a different system, but one that does not serve the real interest of the public and the state. Consider here in Kansas, Governors have seldom if ever issued a pardon to any convicted felon. At the same time, in states like Arkansas, the pardons are in the thousands. There, the Governor is literally the court of last resort in a state where money and politics have basically corrupted the system. This is not the future we want for Kansas, and I was glad to join four former Governors this week to share a message on how we, the people, can fight back. Vote for retention, and if this message resonates, please pass it along.

3 Comments

Due Process Is Not "Tenure"

8/31/2016

4 Comments

It’s no secret that the past few years have been a trying time for education in Kansas. Though many of the recent discussions have related to the funding for education and the unwillingness from today’s Kansas Legislature to comply with the Kansas Constitution by funding our public schools fairly and adequately, the legislature has also made a targeted effort to strip educators of their employment rights. In my opinion, one of the biggest tragedies ever produced by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor was taking due process away from our teachers. Procedurally, to have done it without public hearings and time for the legislative process to have any chance to work effectively, just added salt to the wound. What makes this particularly offensive for me is that I was in the legislature and a part of the leadership that got due process passed into law in the first place. So, with a critical election approaching on November 8th, I think now is an important time to spread facts and make sure every voter enters the ballot box with an understanding of just what’s at stake if we continue on the destructive path we’ve been heading down.

First, let’s discuss the use of the term “tenure,” which deserves much of the credit, or the blame (depending on your position on the issue), for bringing us to our current circumstances. In lay language, tenure is often misunderstood to mean that if you are tenured, you can’t be fired unless you commit some egregious crime. Given that understanding, labeling something as tenure certainly paints a strong negative picture for the public to, understandably, react in outrage. Consequently, this makes it quite a handy tool in the political arena. This explains why those who would like to make sure that teachers can be fired on the spot and without cause love using the word tenure as a weapon for manipulation—one that has, unfortunately, worked to convince many legislators and voters to believe a statement that is simply not accurate.

What we passed many years ago, and what was recently repealed, was due process. In practice, we gave the hiring authority three years to evaluate their new hire (two years for a transferring teacher). Hopefully they would make a serious effort to help develop and mature the talent, but if not satisfied, they could release the teacher from his or her contract without a hearing or explanation of cause. The administration would be in total control within that time-span. But if a teacher is retained after that period, they were granted the right to a fair hearing process in the event of an employment dispute. So if, from the administration's point of view, problems evolved, there would be a process in place to decide the teacher’s fate. The hearing would be conducted by a person appointed by the teacher, a person appointed by the administration, and a third—selected by the representatives from each side—to chair. Having been that appointed third person, I speak from experience in saying that in no way is this process “tenure.”

I understand there are situations where many sane and reasonable folks get frustrated because, in their eyes, the system protected a teacher that wasn’t of the quality they expected and deserved. In most cases, I believe the explanation is quite simple. Too many school administrators, principals for example, do not want nor have the time to do the hard and responsible work of actually evaluating their teachers. This includes keeping detailed records and documenting efforts to help assist the teacher to improve. When that is not done and a teacher appeal goes to a hearing, without proper evidence, very frequently the teacher wins. For the system to work, good practices must prevail. But, rather than working with educators and administrators to improve the existing process, state lawmakers decided—without any input from the people directly involved—to throw out the system entirely and make it so that teachers can now be fired at any time, for any reason, without a hearing.

Fortunately, since the due process law was repealed, there have been several school districts that have restored this employment right for their teachers by including it in their contracts. However, for teachers in the other districts and for the greater good, there is an election in November for citizens to make their point. Our educators do some of the most important work there is, and it’s time that our state end the assault on the teaching profession and renew its commitment to educating our future.

4 Comments

The Rising Cost of Child Care

8/18/2016

0 Comments

Since the beginning of my career in public office, and for the many years since, I’ve been involved in seriously evaluating public policy and looking for ways to improve the human condition. My focus has primarily been on issues related to fiscal policy and public investment that fosters a strong and growing economy, so policies that can help improve quality of life and prepare future generations for success are critical to the kind of state, country, and world we want to be. One fact that has been made clear to me over the past several years (through watching my grandchildren grow up and hearing from my colleagues and friends who are just beginning families of their own), when it comes to raising curious, capable, and caring young people, the first few years of life are absolutely critical. So when I read stories and hear from people embarking on the journey of parenthood, I am absolutely struck by just how challenging and expensive this endeavor can be today. The tipping point was reached when I recently learned of a mother of three children, all in daycare—to the tune of $30,000 a year—who will need the bulk of her take-home pay to cover that expense. With several political campaigns—and now both Presidential candidates—including child care in their list of policy priorities, now is the time for thought, inquiry, and rigorous debate on the policy measures that can be put in place to help working families thrive in the 21st century.

Now, I can hear certain pushback, probably coming from folks of my generation, that choices were made and the consequences follow. But we’re long removed from generations where the “typical mother” stayed home and where day care was supplemented by an older generation still around to help. Today, having both parents—or one single parent—in the job market for economic reasons as well as professional development (such as job training and higher education, including student debt) for the years that follow, the process of raising children looks very different from what some of us were used to before.

Factor in the growing understanding of the importance of early childhood nutrition and learning, and one can easily see the wise investment in quality child care being a priority. What makes this a critical public issue, not just directly for the families themselves, is that a good start pays off for everyone. The results will mean more children really ready for school, more graduating and having actually learned, and more ready for the quality work force we need to build a brighter and more inclusive future.

What the exact answers are as to public policy, I don’t know for sure. But I suspect whatever we can do to address the flattening out of incomes for the middle class, and all aspiring to get there, would be a good start. I’m sure tax policy can play a role, although Donald Trump’s plan that would provide tax breaks for wealthy families while leaving struggling families to fend for themselves doesn’t exactly sound like the values and ideals we should be striving for if we truly want to build an economy that works for everyone. Fortunately, the American people will have their say on who they would rather have shaping these important policies, and there are plenty of good ideas and alternatives out there to discuss. Though the details of Mr. Trump’s plan don’t necessarily reflect this, the fact that this issue has finally reached this level of national dialogue does represent some progress. And it is my hope that rational conservatives can come forward with plans and ideas of their own and, through real deliberation, work with others to craft a policy that will help improve the lives of today’s working families and the future generations they’re working to raise.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Mutual Respect is a Critical First Step

Potential NBAF Move to USDA is Alarming

The 2018 Legislative Session and School Finance

Deficit Concerns Won’t Slow the GOP’s Trickle Down Trainwreck

Reflecting on Governor Brownback's Six Plus Years

Charlottesville and the Response From Higher Education

The Mandela Washington Fellowship at K-State

Taxes Likely to be the Big Issue in the 2018 Kansas Elections

A Great Night for the Future of Kansas

Overtime for the Kansas Legislature

Solving the Kansas Budget Crisis

The Last of Laffer: Learning From the Failed Kansas Experiment

Guns in the Medical Center?

DeVos and Public Education are Like Oil and Water

Vote 'Yes' on Judicial Retention

The "Home Stretch" Before November 8th

Words and Their Impact

Judicial Retention is Vital for Kansas

Due Process Is Not "Tenure"

The Rising Cost of Child Care

Author

Categories

Facebook

Twitter

Subscribe