Recently, my friend Ed Flentje sent me a book he authored including cartoons by Richard Crowson, entitled The Rise and Spectacular Fall: Radical Kansas Republicans, 2010-2020. I’ve read it and came away with not only an excellent refresher course in Kansas government and politics but a clear message that Governor Brownback may be gone but his damaging and totally counterproductive politics live on, and based on the recent Primary results, that continues into 2020.

In the Foreword written by Davis “Buzz” Merritt, newspaper reporter and editor since 1957, he started with a quote combined with his own addition: “Those who cannot do, teach, those who can do, can’t teach,” and “Those who cannot do or teach write newspaper opinion pieces.” That was a light way of introducing Ed’s collection of ten years of opinion pieces he wrote and shared around the state. And it is quite the archive of Kansas political thought and history.

Organized around three chapters: Finance, Politics, and Governance, Ed’s opinion’s are shared as the ten year period progressed, leaving us in depth information and analysis based on his observations and opinions at the time on government action and politics. For me, this read is a must for anyone who wants to better understand the unfortunate "lost decade" just completed in Kansas, but most importantly, to appreciate that the decade following will continue to be heavily influenced by the Brownback failures and, unless that is understood and dealt with, the damage will continue.

I will have more to say on this subject next week on my blog, but I share this today as a focus for further reading and learning on the topic. The book provides excellent background and great detail about the many problems created during those years, and it is my hope that it can provide both education and inspiration, as we charge up for another contentious and consequential election year.

Crowson’s cartoons will add a lighter touch but still very effective at getting the messages across in an entertaining and digestible way. The book is available via eBook or hard-copy and is a must read for anyone concerned about the challenges we face as a state and the politics of the time.

Hillary Clinton may have lost in her 2016 effort to be President (Electoral College only, she won the popular vote big-time) but for sure her success played a key role, I believe, in inspiring so many talented women to run for Congress in 2018 and win. There are 34 new women in the House of Representatives, 33 of whom are Democrats. What stands out to me when I catch an interview with one of them is their passionate commitment to do what they told voters during the campaign they would do. Clearly, these women listened and learned from voters and they are committed to not making the aisle a barrier to getting anything done.

Now, for the first time, we have many talented Democratic women running for President of the United States. Regardless of whether a woman wins or not in 2020, their presence adds a positive dimension to the dialogue. When women lead the way on many issues of obvious interest to women, more men understand and are supportive. More women running at all levels of government also gives a different perspective as we try to address the many challenges we face as a country.

Looking ahead, this country’s best hope is with women winning more and more elections at every level. I say that because women are much more likely to scrap this viciously partisan gamesmanship that exists at almost all levels of elections, and they will work to get positive things done for the good of the people. Congresswoman Sharice Davids in our Kansas 3rd Congressional District is an excellent example. She is very bright, very passionate about changes that need to be made like in health care and not hesitant to work across the aisle to get things done.

I see similar progress in the Kansas Legislature, particularly compared to when I was in office. In recent years, bipartisan groups of women have been key to getting our state back on the road to recovery after the devastating Brownback years, and Governor Laura Kelly will now take the lead in keeping us on the right path. Now, compare that to when I was first elected to the Legislature in 1970. In my first term the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed and sent to the states for potential ratification. To show you how times have changed, support for the Amendment was strong generally across the board and it was passed overwhelmingly by a male and Republican-dominated legislature. There were only two women in the House and, interestingly enough, both voted against it based primarily on their concern that we would all be using the same bathroom.

Then, following my re-election in 1976 and becoming Speaker for the '77-78 term, I was in the position of appointing all the committee chairs. By then, we had added several women to the Democratic Caucus and it was my pleasure to appoint the first ever women chairs of committees in the Kansas Legislature. They were Ruth Wilkin from Topeka and Ruth Lazzati from Wichita.

For the record, there are very good men in public office as well. It is just that there are too many men who are there to hold the seat, enjoy whatever perks exist, and follow whatever the special interests who got them elected want them to do. Good women are making a real difference at both the state and national level. It just might be realistic now to hope that with this progress continuing, we will soon reach a tipping point and sanity in politics will once again become common at both the national and state levels.

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.

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. ​

With the Kansas Legislature taking the week off, now is a good time to assess where, as a state, we are. Overall, I am very pleased with the first seven weeks of the 2017 Legislative Session. Topping the list of positives would be the totally improved capitol environment. There is a much friendlier atmosphere and certainly more communication and willingness to work together across party lines. It is my opinion that this is the result of electing so many new legislators who are committed to solving the real problems, rather than just adding “Legislator” to their resume. Leadership on both sides of the aisle seem more committed to doing what is best for the state. But then again, this is only after seven weeks, and so much can and will happen—​both good and bad—​in the remaining time.

The new House and Senate members who Save Kansas—​which all our living former Governors support—​played a role in electing have been making several positive contributions. So far, despite being new, they are not only following through on their commitments with the votes they cast but also, in many cases, are providing strong leadership. Normally, I might advise and expect new members at this point to listen, stay in their seats, and let the veterans take the lead. But, given the struggles of recent legislative sessions, I am most happy with the way they are engaged. In my opinion, the state is going to really benefit from the class of 2016—​hopefully for years and terms to come.

As to specifics, on the positive side of the issue ledger, it appears the remaining budget questions for Fiscal Year 2017 (ends June 30) are resolved without making further cuts. The leading success to date that I wrote about last week is the progress towards repealing the Governor’s tax experiment. But the House didn’t stop there. They went on to pass Medicaid expansion with 80 plus votes and also a bill to restore due process rights to our state’s educators. All of this is just more evidence of how much the election of 2016 is positively impacting Kansas.

I also continue to be encouraged by the level of engagement from the citizens of our state, who have been pushing for change and sustaining their energy and focus on the problems that need solving—​both during the election cycle and throughout the first weeks of the session. This element will be absolutely critical to any successes moving forward.

On the negative side, what stands out for me is the unwillingness to address the rightful concern about guns on campuses. Even just focusing this issue on KU Medical Center couldn’t get out of committee. I will have more to say on this soon, but suffice to say I want to believe common sense will prevail before sine die adjournment in late May.

​As we head into the inauguration of our 45th President, why is it that so many are still shaking their heads? What influence did fake news, false tweets, and Russia have on the final results? Well, I don’t know for sure, although bonehead moves by the opposition didn’t help either. What I do believe is this: Any and all who have serious concerns about what the current makeup in Washington might do will need to get beyond the election, avoid obvious self-serving partisan rhetoric, and get and stay on legitimate messages about key issues by focusing on educating the public and making the case.

As to why the Donald’s approach works, I believe it is tied to a couple of things. First and foremost, there are lots of understandably frustrated folks who not only feel they have been left behind but that the establishment doesn’t care. They, for the most part, don’t follow the issues in great depth. They don’t have the time given the pressures they are under. That greatly helps someone like Trump, with his tweeting approach to communication. He understands salesmanship and the value of entertaining an audience that is looking for something to again give them hope. They don’t know for sure if what he says will work, but for the moment, it certainly appeals to them more than the opponent who was written off automatically as a member of the establishment.

Bottom line for the minority party in Washington is that their slinging tweets and personal attacks will not work. Donald Trump is better at that, and if we continue to fight him on his turf, his home field advantage will only serve him, his message, and his agenda. I also hope that the Democrats will not miss opportunities to compromise and partner with the new President when it is in the best interest of the American people. Some of his comments, for example on health care, seem to indicate an opening. I certainly do not want them to repeat what the Republicans did when President Obama came into office: making it clear that their number one priority was seeing to it that he wouldn’t get re-elected. Well, he was re-elected. But, because of their approach, a lot of important and needed change was not accomplished, even in areas where the two parties may have been able to find common ground. That approach didn’t work for the Republicans, it won’t work now for Democrats, and it especially won’t work for the best interests of the country.

What we need Saturday from the marchers protesting in Washington D.C. and capitols around the country is a clear message that there will be strong, yet responsible, opposition to many of Trump’s ideas. There are alternative and better ideas in most cases, and the agenda certainly should include some of the concerns of those who voted for him. For example, the changing and increasingly more technology-driven economy puts real pressure on finding new ways to create opportunities for the many that currently are left out.

Repeating the old ways won’t work, in rhetoric or in practice. We need all hands on deck for this one, and that includes citizens staying informed, staying involved, and pushing for action.

​Hasn't someone shared the real "state of the state" with the Governor or told him that the 2016 Kansas election results were about change?

As I learn about the release of the Governor’s budget on Wednesday and reflect back to what he said in the State of the State on Tuesday evening, I can’t help but think he must have been out of the state during the 2016 elections. Everyone who knows the true state of our state, or followed the happenings of the campaign, knows it was a change election. People want fiscal and other key issues addressed, and they elected a large number of new legislators for that reason.

So what do we hear from the Governor? Well, first of all, he says the entire world envies Kansas, using our sunrises and sunsets as his lead example. I must agree, they are one of our real attractions. But they don’t take care of the roads, make sure our public education system is best serving the needs of our younger generation, nor do they help balance the state budget.  

As I watched his presentation, I got the feeling that Republicans in the legislature want more from him—as in, true leadership on the budget. There were key sections of his speech that got no applause, even from Republicans. Moderate Republican legislators certainly know the concerns of the public, because they heard them from their constituents throughout the election, and I think they are ready to help chart a new, more responsible course.

Even on some of his more substantive comments, there were real problems. Tuesday night he tried to convince us his 2017 and 2018 budgets were structurally balanced, meaning that not only was everything paid for but was on a solid path going forward. When the budget was released Wednesday, the truth is basically the administration hopes that by 2019 this statement will be accurate. It is no wonder why many Republicans are very concerned about the mess he and his very conservative legislative friends have made. Unfortunately, with his staying the course and the Senate unlikely to override vetoes, immediate corrections are not likely.

What this reinforces is the likelihood that really addressing the challenges we face may have to wait until after the 2018 election. Hopefully then a new Governor will be ready to provide real leadership, and we will have an even stronger House to achieve needed changes. For us now, the focus should be on re-electing successful 2016 candidates, supporting additional new candidates for the House (the Senators are not up for reelection in 2018), and having Gubernatorial candidates who are willing to make it clear that they support a moderate direction that wisely invests in our future.

​As we look to the opening of the Kansas Legislative session next Monday and the Governor’s State of the State address on Tuesday, let us be mindful of the huge set of challenges ahead for Kansas to recover from the failed policies of the last six years. It will be more difficult and complicated than any governmental challenge I can recall in my lifetime. To be successful, at least three things need to happen. One, we need to make sure the whole story of our fiscal mess is out on the table and understood by the public. Second, we need to understand that despite the progress of electing more moderates in 2016, unless the new President finds a job for our Governor, we will have him for two more years. And third, we have to be very careful not to fall into a trap that is packaged as a strong first step in dealing with our problem.  

It is to that latter point that I wish to comment on today. The announcement that the two new chairs of the two tax committees would be pushing immediately for repeal of the Limited Liability Corporation tax cut sounds so encouraging. They even want to make it retroactive to January 1 to make the most of helping the state out of its fiscal crisis. However, in truth, this is nothing more than an effort to protect the bulk of the other negative changes in the Governor’s failed tax experiment. To his credit, Representative Jim Ward, the new House minority leader, quickly pointed out that this action makes dealing with the bigger, more complicated challenges even more difficult. "The question is: How many of these votes do you want to take?" Ward said. "And if you're going to take serious steps to address the problem—which is a structural budget problem—shouldn't we have a comprehensive approach?"

From the far-right perspective, repealing the tax exemption makes good sense. Privately, supporters of the original tax cut know that a majority of Kansans want change and admission that the experiment didn’t work. By sounding responsible, they know their chances of protecting the remainder of the tax experiment increases. This is because many legislators will feel they have done their part and will not support any other steps that are necessary to really get the job done.

The Republicans and Democrats that were elected to address the mess must now be very strategic, politically wise, and patient for the right time and way to really take the steps to restore Kansas to solid positions it previously had. That is, wisely investing in quality public education, understanding that taking care of our infrastructure makes good business sense, and that supporting our most vulnerable citizens is not only right but is also in the state’s best interests.

The effort by so many responsible citizens to bring success in the 2016 elections must be continued now or that progress will be very short-lived. We must share this reality, support those who want to really address the challenges, and be wisely patient for the best interests of the state.

I’ll plan to discuss this and many other issues throughout this legislative session as events unfold. In the meantime, if this resonates with you, help spread the word. Tell your legislators you understand that positive change will take time. Bring the message to others. We citizens must step up and be an active part of the solutions. It won’t happen without us.

​Will Rogers once said, “I don’t belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat.” When I look at the National Democratic Party, that seems to fit where we are today. One really important key to any organization's success is always the leadership. Without that component being strong, no organization can have much real success. Looking at the newly-elected Minority Leadership in Congress, along with the speculation of who might be the new Chair of the National Democratic Party, one with any common sense and experience has to have significant concerns.

First, let me remind you of the obvious facts. The Republican Party controls not just the Presidency but both Houses of Congress. There is very little at the moment to point to as strengths of the Democratic Party. Why is this true? To me it is very clear. We Democrats have not only forgotten about many states, but we have also forgotten about many of the people, particularly those who feel left out today, within states where we have some strength. The result is fewer Governors elected and most legislatures in Republican hands. This, for now, leaves Republicans in charge of reapportionment and the gerrymandering that follows for both state and congressional district maps. With a new decennial census coming, now would have been a very good time for more savvy and in tune Democratic leadership. I expanded on this idea a bit more in my recent blog post, “Reflecting on the 2016 Presidential Election.”

So what did the Democrats do when electing their new leadership for the coming two years? They re-elected the same team that got us to where we are now. I respect Leader Pelosi and acknowledge she has had much success. Similarly, I like Assistent Leader Steny Hoyer. He was a big help to me when I was the Archivist of the United States. But they represent the past and only coastal states, leaving out that broad area in between. How can they lead to a future that expands our base by reaching out effectively to the young and the many who feel left out? Then, in the Senate, we have Senator Schumer from New York who is experienced and skilled but has little appeal to the key, broad middle of the country.

Coming soon is the selection of a new National Chair of the Democratic Party. We tried a part-time chair the last time, and I believe most would agree that didn’t work. We need one that is obviously capable, appeals to a broad segment of the entire country, and will certainly give their full attention to leading the party in a direction that includes all fifty states.

If this country is going to get its act together in so many key areas, it will be the Democratic Party this time that will have to respond and step up to the challenges we face. With much of the Republican Party at the national level currently controlled by the far right, progress will depend on a much more practical and effective Democratic Party. That hasn’t always been the case, but it is today and the future of the country just might depend on it.

​The progress that was made to return sanity to the State of Kansas in the August Primary and continued on November the 8th must take another step next Monday (December 5th) in Topeka. That is when legislative leaders will be selected for both parties in both Houses. For my thoughts on the results, read my December 6th Update at the bottom of this post.

The people have spoken. The Brownback policies have failed, and the voters said strongly that change is in order. For that to translate into real action starting in January, strong leaders from both parties—who are ready to address problems and start turning things around—must be selected for these leadership positions.

I served a two year term as Speaker of the Kansas House many years ago, and I am well aware that much has changed. But what hasn’t changed is the power the speaker has in controlling the agenda. The speaker controls the committee makeups, who will chair each committee, what bills ever come up to the floor, and in what order. Individual members, knowing those facts, can more easily be persuaded to support the Speaker. On the Senate side, there has been much change. The President of the Senate now has as much power as the Speaker, making who these two people are very important.

In the Senate on Monday, it appears there will be limited change. The moderate coalition does not have the votes to really influence the outcome. But on the House side, the story is very different. The race for Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader are very much contested, and from all appearances, they are all very close. One thing that is clear is that the large number of new House members will control the outcome in both parties. And my message to them is to keep in mind the people who helped get you to where you are. Most were elected to help bring changes that a strong majority of Kansans want. Therefore support those candidates with the best capacity to help lead the next steps in restoring Kansas.

Now if you are reading this and live in a district where a new moderate was elected, you might remind the new legislator that who they elect Monday will not just make a difference to them, but most importantly, will be key to any hope of needed change. This is just one of many ways in which we citizens must take a much more active role. Only an activated citizenry can really help mobilize the changes Kansas needs. Elected officials are in a stronger position when their constituents are informed and involved.

​December 6th Update: Thoughts on the Leadership Selections
The legislative leadership election yesterday brought a mixed bag of progress and holding on to the past far-right direction under Governor Brownback. In the Senate, there was little change on the surface, with one exception: Senator Vicki Schmidt of Topeka, a key moderate, was elected to the leadership team. Despite limited success, the balance in the Senate now stands at 20-20. This should allow the moderate Republicans and Democrats to be much more effective. In the House, aside from electing another very conservative Speaker, the moderate Republicans prevailed. Combined with the Democratic election success, the moderate coalition now holds a significant majority. This means the Democrats, now led by Jim Ward of Wichita, have the opportunity to play a much more significant role.

The summary of all this comes down to the top leader in both houses still having significant power to control the agenda, but the moderates will have the power to stop whatever they so choose. What that means is that, at some point, compromise must play a strong role in both houses for Kansas to take positive steps forward.

​The November 8th national results were obviously not what I wanted. As you may know, I’ve known and liked Hillary Clinton since 1979. She, like all of us, has made some mistakes. Some of which, in hindsight, were bad judgment calls. But it was her talents and commitment to public service that really got her in trouble. From her days in Arkansas, the Republican Party correctly saw her potential and started the process of taking her out. They used anything that could be twisted into an appearance of scandal, failing on substance but always leaving a scar. Over time, the scars piled up. Then the email issue and the FBI, and we have the election results. However, with that being said, I find the false equivalence—or the idea that somehow “they were both equally flawed”—to be very troubling, especially given the type of campaign that Mr. Trump ran, his many unresolved conflicts of interest, and some of the things he has promised to do throughout his term. Far beyond this election, I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton's legacy will be one of lifelong commitment to improving people's lives. And, as she always has, she will continue to fight on behalf of the same issues she's championed throughout her distinguished and inspirational career.
 
As for the 2016 election, Hillary clearly respected the long-standing tradition of accepting the results and wishing the new administration success. But she did not back away from what she stands for and her campaign positions. By contrast, President-elect Trump in less than 24 hours went from “lock her up” to praising her service and the many ways the Clintons have served the country’s interests. It is no wonder why so many look at politics with little interest and no respect. Frankly, it’s still too early to tell just what kind of president he wants to be—in one breath, he positions himself to be a diplomat ready to bring the divided country back together, but then he uses the other hours of the day to bring a mixture of far-right extremists and typical Washington insiders on to his team. As his extreme positions spark hate and create division among his base supporters and the more compassionate members of the American public, from a policy perspective, it has become clear that his populist persona during the campaign may end up being a front for the same special interests—that have run the state of Kansas into the ditch throughout the past few years—to soon have their way in Washington, D.C. And, given the struggles we’ve had in our state, watching the entire country go through the same self-inflicted disaster, especially when our national economy was close to turning the corner from one of the worst recessions in our history, will be difficult and frustrating to watch. And we can only hope that our country can come around to the realization, after way too many examples of failure—including right here in Kansas—that trickle-down economics simply doesn’t work and begin to correct course in the midterm elections before it’s too late.
 
As to the political lessons I take away, there are many, but it really boils down to just a couple that are significant. First, the national Democratic Party desperately needs a 50 state strategy similar to what Governor Howard Dean has been pushing for some time. The reason should be obvious, but I guess it isn’t. When the focus is only on the states needed to win the Electoral College, it should not be too surprising that so many states elect Republican Governors and Republican-controlled Legislatures. This leads to Republicans controlling reapportionment, which leads to maps that favor Republicans staying in power, which then leads to too many states failing to attract the talent that, over time and with experience, leads to quality Congressional candidates. The second lesson is that we have all too often forgotten Tip O’Neil’s simple advice that “all politics is local.” People see issues and priorities from their own perspectives and often respond poorly to ideas that don’t seem to address their main concerns. Many feel left out and ignored. Millions, frustrated with their economic status, were trying to say “it's the economy, stupid.” If the campaign message doesn’t resonate, you often fail to get the results you want. And, in the future, candidates who hope to stand up for middle class and working families will need to make it clear how their policy platforms will more adequately address issues of economic inequality and help build more bridges for frustrated citizens to get help re-tooling their skills and finding a place in the 21st Century economy, rather than vote against their own interests by supporting candidates whose policies only benefit those at the very top.
 
Finally, my best piece of advice for future citizen engagement efforts would be for passionate activists to pay close attention to the issues you care about. Perhaps it is an area of progress from the past eight years and the administration of President Barack Obama that you hope will continue, or it could be an issue that affects your family's livelihood or future generations. Whatever those core issues are for you, now is a more important time than ever to speak out and support those causes in any way that you can. As discouraging as the current climate may be, people do have the power to bring about change, and this will be absolutely critical to our future.
 
I plan to keep an eye on several issues throughout the coming presidential term and will occasionally have thoughts to share on my blog. But, for now, my interests and focus returns to the state of Kansas and building on the success we had with our coalition of Moderate Republicans and Democrats coming together for the best interests of Kansans. We now have an opportunity to be a model for the type of bipartisan problem solving and engagement that it will take to move both our state and country forward.

The November 8th election left us with some bright spots and also made clear some of the challenges our state and country will face moving forward. Looking back on the outcomes, I intentionally waited, giving myself some time to reflect and get over what was disappointing. I wanted to get in a frame of mind that is ready to move forward, by building off of what was successful and learning from what didn’t work. On the successes, I want to thank and give credit to the thousands of you who read and, I believe, acted on the challenge to influence others and advance the conversation on issues. Your work helped make the difference on the retention of Judges as well as provided the opportunity to improve the quality and problem solving capacity of the Kansas Legislature. The positive results are very significant, and you deserve credit and gratitude. And, going forward, your voice will be more important than ever.

We have sent a powerful message that the people of Kansas like merit selection and do not want any Governor to have too much power in selecting future Justices or Judges. In the process, we have held off a move where the blatant use of politics and money would have controlled the Judiciary. What we have been proud of, an independent and equally powerful Judiciary, will continue adding to sixty years of success.  

As a result of this year's primary and general elections, we now will have a legislature, particularly in the House, that will be much more in tune with the people and issues that need to be addressed. A coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats will, at the very least, be able to stop crazy things that in the past made it to the Governor for signature. As we look towards the 2017 Legislative Session, there are a host of issues that will need immediate and sustained attention. On the policy front, this blog post from Duane Goossen, "Rise Up, Kansas" lays out some of the important places to start and points to an upcoming policy roll-out event that will take place next month at the Capitol.

On the engagement side, one way you can continue to help out going forward is to share with me in your comments, your observations of both the campaigns for retention and individual legislative races. I want to know what you think worked and what didn’t. Does the candidate and/or supporters going door to door impact your vote? Were the postcards and mailers effective? Did getting so many make a positive impact? Did the use of digital ads showing up online have impact? What about taped robo calls versus live calls? I want to know whatever you can share that might be helpful going forward. Knowing what works can really make a difference.

I will have more to say as time passes as to what the decisions of November 8th will mean for Kansas, including the Presidency and how it will impact our state and nation. In the meantime, please consider sharing this message and any feedback you have that can assist in future efforts to bring change to Kansas.

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.

It’s late October, and Advanced Voting is taking place all across Kansas! While candidates, campaigns, and volunteers are working hard to reach voters and get them out to vote, Halloween may be coming early in the form of mailed political postcards and fear tactics designed to swing elections right at the very end. For some of you, this is a reminder and, for others, a warning. The State Chamber of Commerce is raising a million dollars to try influence voters into supporting candidates who will do their bidding. Many will use scary messages or chilling imagery but have no factual basis for how one should actually vote. However, in most cases, you will be getting cards from both the incumbent and the challenger, so how do you sort out the facts from the fear tactics?

The difference between the incumbents’ and their challengers’ messages is that the challengers are using documented facts on issues of taxes, public school funding, and stealing from KDOT to the detriment of our roads and highways. In contrast, the incumbents will be doing everything possible to avoid their voting records. Why do some incumbents avoid sharing their voting record? They certainly do not want to remind voters of their record of helping Governor Brownback, the least popular Governor in the country, carry out his totally failed experiment. The first time these misleading postcards had significant influence was in the 2012 Kansas Republican primaries. The tactic was used again in both the primary and the general election of 2014. These misleading messages are totally out of sync with Kansas values but can be effective if you and others don’t speak up when it happens by correctly defending quality candidates possessing honest records of solid public service and a desire to solve problems.

That really nice candidate who you likely met at a meeting or knocking on your door, the one who is willing to stand up to the special interests of the Governor and his legislative cronies, is suddenly portrayed as the best friend of Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. The fact is, there is no connection between these three and any of the legislative candidates being attacked. This scheme is a last ditch effort to save incumbent legislators who voted with the Governor 90% of the time or maybe even more. In addition to the trash being spread about legislative candidates, similar false attacks will be issued against the qualified Judges and Justices of the Kansas Judicial Branch as well, in an attempt to derail the critical Judicial Retention votes that are on the ballot this year.

So what can you do? Spread the word that any card linking state-level candidates to Obama and Clinton are just distractions, that many of these attack mailers contain information that is simply not true, and that the incumbent doesn’t want to campaign on issues—and certainly not on his or her voting record. For many races, whether this push-back happens or not could be the difference between an incumbent being reelected or the challenger getting a new opportunity to really represent the public’s best interests.

The ultimate success or failure of any President is tied to their leadership capacity, their political savvy, and who they put on their team. Given that we want to elect someone who has a chance at being successful, wouldn’t it be helpful if they’d get around to telling us their approach to leading the country? Since the first debates during primary season, I’ve been focused on the topic of leadership discussion and dialogue in the Presidential race. Policy plans and general temperament to be Commander-in-Chief—two areas that have been on display already throughout the debates so far—are important. But to this point, we have heard little about how they would get the job done.
​
In a recent blog, I wrote about the difference between being President and doing President. I made the point that some candidates for public office are interested in gaining the title and the power but have little or no intention of working hard to achieve results. To actually lead a different direction, to solve particular problems—to actually do the job of President—one has to have the skills and talents to be a change agent. In my latest follow-up post on the topic of leadership dialogue in Election 2016, I provided a list of some of the questions that could help voters understand their approaches to the doing aspects of the Presidency. In the absence of these types of questions being asked to our current Presidential candidates, one must look back at their history and record to discover how they would approach the job and work to get things done. And from my observations so far, this year we have a clear choice between being and doing.

From what we’ve seen from Mr. Trump throughout this race, it’s clear that he enjoys the attention brought upon candidates for the highest office in the country. The idea of being President is something he clearly takes an interest in. Although I do not understand some of his strategies, and he offers very few specifics, his focus seems to be on “winning” and promising more “winning” to the American people. But, given what we’ve seen from him so far, can he do the job? 

Though the Presidency brings a high level of authority and influence, one person alone cannot carry out the job. Although Donald Trump seems to be taking more leadership cues from Vladimir Putin than anyone who has ever served as President of the United States, our system of government was not set up for a bully to simply order things done. There are three equal branches of government. Between successfully working with one branch and staying within the Constitution and laws of the other, one cannot simply dictate orders through force of personality—a tactic Trump seems to rely on heavily in his business career. And when it comes to this country’s role in the global community, “tough talk” and offensive rhetoric is no way to gain and work with allies, exercise leadership, and build coalitions to get things done on the world’s stage. Hopefully, in the next four weeks, he will be challenged to tell us just how he plans to work with others to do the job of President.

Hillary Clinton’s challenges are different. Her lifetime of experience and commitment to public service demonstrates her desire to lead change, to do the job. She has a specific plan for most, if not all, of the critical issues we face—even going so far as to outline how she plans to accomplish each objective—and has made these plans accessible to the public for review. It is also clear that she understands the complexities of the role of President. And, from her experiences with the other branches of government as well as her leadership of a large, diverse executive agency with a worldwide presence, her prior jobs have given her opportunities to demonstrate some of the leadership capacities needed to successfully do the job. 

​The question for her is, how are you going to be successful with a divided country, represented in Congress by two opposing camps who can’t seem to work together on anything? When President Obama was first elected, Republican leadership announced that their number one goal was to see to it that he would not be reelected. If this repeats, the future could be bleak. It will take leadership that focuses on bringing people together, finding areas of agreement, and working beyond barriers and differences—such as party lines, country borders, generations, races, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and differing abilities—to make progress on behalf of the people.

In my view, those will be the leadership challenges that each candidate will face. While I hope that some of these questions will be discussed and answered in the remaining four weeks, I am not holding my breath that the October 9th and 19th debates will in any way focus on the doing of the job. But I will continue to engage this topic, which I believe is critical to our future. And I am hopeful that the winning transition team has given these challenges of doing President a lot of thought and that our soon-to-be new President will refine a leadership and political approach that has a chance of being successful and moving us forward as a nation.

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.

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.

​One thing I’ve emphasized throughout my time teaching is the concept of learning as a “two-way street.” While I do my best to pull together interesting readings and examples to share with students, often times some of the most powerful learning comes from them to me. One such lesson, which I’ve been reflecting on a lot throughout this particular election season, happened several years ago when I had a student from Lithuania in my Practical Politics class (which I taught every spring semester for ten years). In one of the final papers assigned to the class, she shared her thinking on political candidates here in the United States. Her question for the voters was this: do you want to elect resume builders or problem solvers?

​In other words, do you want to vote for someone just angling for a higher office or someone who wants to be a part of solving the problems that exist? We need the latter, but I fear all too often we elect the former. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should expect our candidates to disavow any interest in a higher office. But what it does mean is that we expect them to deal directly with the problems at hand knowing there will be political risk involved.

Along the same vein, from Steven Sample’s book The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, is a chapter on "to be President" or "to do President." His focus is on leaders in higher education, but the point has general merit. Like my Lithuanian student raised, is the goal in seeking office to be a state legislator in order to build a resume that could lead to higher office? Or is it to do the job, to help legislate progress, and to actually help bring the change that is obviously needed?

I’ve thought a lot about this and, for me, both my student and Steven Sample have hit on a really important point. As we look for folks to fill key positions, whether in the political arena or elsewhere, we should be clearer about who it is we are looking for and really need. Do we want someone who will be likable, play it safe, appear to be leading, and willing to "just go along" in order to set him or herself up for the next job on the way to the top? Or do we want someone who has the talent, critical thinking, and will to own up to and take on the clear challenges we have, knowing that this direction often leads to less popularity (particularly over time)?

Come November the 8th, the entire Kansas Legislature is up for election. It is our opportunity to decide whether we want resume builders, someone to just be a legislator, or do we want problem solvers, folks to do the job and do what is best for the public? I don’t think it is too hard to decide who we need. The challenges we face are real, and they're beginning to be more fully understood by the public at large. Incumbent Legislators locked in to the Governor’s agenda and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, versus talented challengers ready to take on issues, make difficult decisions, build consensus, and lead—these are the choices we have. Now is the time that we identify who we want to support and help financially and by volunteering. In each race, I think you will find out who the real leaders are: they are the ones who are running for office to solve problems. Our future—the future of Kansas—come January, will be tied to whether problem solvers or resume builders control the majority in the Kansas Legislature. Each and every one of us can make a difference, and there are many problem solvers who will need your active support.

​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.

​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.