There is an essential question at the core of Kansas’ ongoing, and now generational-spanning, debate over the adequate and equitable funding of public education and the curriculum that our public schools should teach. It’s one that, unfortunately, has not always been openly discussed and debated by policy makers and civic leaders. And it may be a question that has no single answer upon which everyone can agree. But without an answer to this crucial, central question, finding any common ground or “right” policy for funding or curriculum standards will continue to be like trying to find an agreeable place to stand in a revolving door.
​
What is the purpose of education?

There are several common answers to this question, usually implied but not necessarily outright spoken.  For some, a K-12 education (and even a college education) is first, foremost, and primarily about preparing a young person for a job. In this worldview, education is about developing productive skills that can be used to earn a living and support a family.

For others, the purpose of education is to expose individuals to the breadth of human experience. Sometimes, this is through a specific lens driven by religious faith or set of personal values, but nonetheless the theme here is to prepare young people to be well-rounded, creative, and curious about their world and help them see themselves as part of a larger whole.

These are not mutually exclusive answers, of course. However, regardless of which answer one chooses, there is a separate, essential layer to consider. Throughout the American educational history, whether the pendulum swung toward the “vocational” or the “liberal arts” model, we have traditionally valued the role of education to help make young people into engaged citizens of our democracy. 

Unfortunately, much of our K-12 system has lost connection with this purpose of educating engaged citizenry. As we’ve piled on more standardized tests and more required curriculum elements, there has become less and less classroom time to focus on questions of what it means to be civically engaged. As our national and state politics have become more polarized and our society has become more litigious, the least risky path for teachers can be to avoid exploring civic and democratic engagement and the “messiness” that comes when diverse communities come together to address shared needs and opportunities.

Yet, encouraging informed, active civic engagement and democratic participation should be at the apex of our educational priorities. The Gates Foundation, in Civic Pathways Out of Poverty and Into Opportunity, notes, “The importance of civic engagement transcends charitable acts of kindness—the skill development, increased content knowledge, and self-empowerment resulting from civic engagement activities foster the necessary confidence and skills for success in higher education and the workforce.”

What I mean by civic engagement is a broad set of actions and behaviors that demonstrate care and commitment to one’s communities. These communities may be based in geography (local, state, national, global), identity (religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity), or cultural and social groups and allegiances. But regardless of the basis for “community,” a civically engaged individual takes responsibility for learning about the issues confronting his or her community, identifies which issues align with his or her strengths, values, and passions, and chooses to take action in accordance with those to make his or her community stronger and more vibrant.

This is where teaching civic engagement can be liberating for teachers and students alike. Civic engagement is not just limited to voting, or volunteering, or giving money to causes. It might also include organizing petitions, or speaking at a public forum before the local city council, or writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Civic engagement might be even less formal than these—learning how an issue affects you and your peers and engaging them in a discussion of the possible consequences would also make a community stronger and more vibrant.

This is why we should be excited by a new effort at the Kansas Department of Education. Last year, Dr. Randy Watson, the still-new Commissioner of Education, convened nearly 300 focus groups across the state to explore the question I posed at the outset: “What is the purpose of education and how would we characterize success?” And wouldn’t you know it, Kansans identified “citizenship, ethics, and duty to others” as the single most important category of interpersonal social skills required for student success. It’s now up to a task force at KSDE to figure out what this means for the future and how we take steps to help educators foster civic engagement for students at all levels. I’m honored to be a member of this task force.

In that work, I’m hopeful that we embrace the view that civic engagement is not something that yields itself to another standardized test. Civic engagement does not equal the old “civics.” I believe everyone should know when the Declaration of Independence was signed (1776), how many amendments were in the original Bill of Rights (10), how many U.S. Supreme Court Justices there are (9), and which branch of government has the power to regulate interstate commerce (the Legislative branch). But the ability to recite these facts does not make one civically engaged. The ability to see how these facts and others may affect issues facing your community, and how these facts may provide avenues for taking action on those issues—​that is civic engagement.

At the same time, as a child of educators, I believe that we cannot make civic engagement just another item on a list of items that teachers must check off during the school year. This effort cannot, it must not, be treated as just one more thing to shoehorn into the curriculum. Civic engagement is not just “another subject area” to be taught. It needs to be woven into the fabric of everything taught in our schools, from kindergarten to high school. Civic engagement can be a part of every subject. We should be able to teach writing by writing letters to the editor to newspapers or to Member of Congress. Math classes could include explorations of the use of geometry in creating community gardens. Art classes can involve speaking about the history and value of public works of art with others. The list is endless and exciting, and many students are drawn to learning by doing, which is the only way to truly foster civic engagement.

In the end, Kansas needs to embrace the importance of civic engagement as connective tissue for the entirety of the educational journey, and in so doing, we will equip future generations with the most valuable knowledge they can receive.

Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Fund, where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

It was a hot and humid afternoon when the speaker approached the microphone. The ceiling fans did nothing to cool the auditorium, and there was no air conditioning. Pastors and lay delegates from south Alabama and west Florida Methodist churches had assembled for their Annual Conference, and John Sparkman, the senior senator from Alabama, was to give the keynote address. As he took his place behind the podium, the congregation rose for a standing ovation. Senator Sparkman began: “Thank you for that generous welcome. I feel right at home. As you know, my father was a Methodist Minister and all I ever learned about politics I learned at a Methodist Annual Conference.”

We all laughed but we were well aware of the truth behind his words. Annual Conference was where we came together to worship, attend to the business of the Church, set policy, and debate theological and social issues. The Bishop, with the help of the District Superintendents, would appoint pastors to the churches for the following year. Yes, there would be politics in the Conference, for that was the way things got done. This was Montgomery, Alabama—June, 1957. The temperature was over 100 degrees every day and racial tension was the highest since Reconstruction. The world was holding its breath, waiting to see if violence would erupt. Politics, in the city, was at its worst.

Inside the auditorium, we set the agenda, gave reports, argued, and compromised as we tried to move the church to relevance in the world outside. Inspiring sermons, prayers, and hymns punctuated our worship—Methodists do love to sing! For the most part, we kept our tempers and were respectful of each other as we struggled to be faithful in the decisions we made. We didn't hold hands and sing “Kum Ba Ya,” but on more than one occasion, I saw that when a heated argument was ended by a call for a vote, the principals left the floor of the conference to go share a cup of coffee with one another.

One morning, Brother Emmet Wilson, a retired minister in his eighties who was filling in as pastor to a small congregation, rose to address the delegates. He was aware of a dramatic demographic shift on the horizon in the southern part of the state and wanted to position the church to serve the new community. He approached the Conference Mission Committee with his request for funding. It was denied. Not to be outdone, he took his cause to the floor of the entire conference. He spoke passionately but with humor. Everyone knew that whenever Brother Wilson spoke to the conference, he presented a gift—a challenge, always wrapped in stories. But some of his stories tended to go on for awhile. This day, after the old minister had been holding forth for quite some time, the bishop wrapped his gavel and called for a point of order, hoping to end Brother Wilson's story. The old minister reached up, took a hearing aid out of each ear, said, “They sure are out of order, Bishop,” and kept talking. He finally ended by saying, “I talked to the Lord last night. And I told the Lord that I wasn't going to eat or drink until the conference approved this mission.” He paused, glanced at the bishop with a smile, and said, “but the Lord told me I could smoke my pipe!” (This was in reference to a long-standing and sometime ignored rule that Methodist ministers must refrain from smoking).

We were still laughing when Joel McDavid, Chairman of the Missions Committee, stood and said he was reconvening the Committee and he felt sure they could find a way to grant the request. Everyone applauded. Brother Wilson thanked his good friend, Joel and sat down. The old preacher's stories could go on forever, but this time he knew when to stop. It was politics at its best.

The Reverend Emmet Wilson never sought positions of power or prestige within the Annual Conference. All his ministry, he served small struggling congregations at subsistence level salaries. As far as I know, he never published anything and was not in demand as an evangelistic preacher. But that one day, in an overheated college auditorium, he raised the bar and gave us all a glimpse of what politics, when practiced with integrity and humor, was all about.

A sometime Storyteller, Pastor Max Hale has served over half a century in ministry in various settings, including the military, the campus, and the local church. You may follow him on his                                         blog: www.avirtualfrontporch.com

Boobus Americanus. H.L. Mencken’s term for Americans who fall prey to politicians, con men, and snake oil salesman in general.
​
As a lifelong conservative who has voted Republican in every Presidential election but one since 1968, I am front and center in saying that if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz wins the Republican nomination, they will have one less vote to count on in November.

As a conservative whose governing beliefs are founded in the philosophy that a representative government works best when men and women of good intentions argue forcefully, passionately, and yes, even angrily for their positions, their party, and their constituents and that they then come together through compromise to fashion policies that serve the common good, I realize that some issues leave no room for compromise, causing stalemate or the rough domination of a narrow majority. And I realize that, in the rough and tumble of debate, words can be spoken that batter and bruise opponents. It has been ever such in American politics, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are absolved from blame in this context.

But it is one thing to wage political war over principled positions, while it is quite a different matter to demonize the opponent who holds those principles. And that is what political discourse has come to at this point in our history. Factions within both parties have taken the holier-than-thou position on everything from health care, to immigration, to economic fairness, to the size and scope of government. Each of these issues deserves to be examined and discussed in the full and healthy light of reasoned discourse, but in today’s political environment they can’t even garner reasoned discussion within the parties where extremists would rather torch the house than compromise for the common good, let alone their party’s good.

Trump is a nativist, a boor and a bully, arrogant, and culturally ignorant. All of these are what I abhor in an individual and enough in themselves to keep me from voting for him. Added to this list of disqualifying personal attributes is the fact that Trump is not a conservative. He’s not a conservative in support of a strong military nor the use of it. He’s not a conservative when he advocates raising taxes, the result of which will be an increase in the scope of government. Trump is not conservative when he is on the record for replacing Obamacare with a single payer—the government—health care system. Trump is not conservative when he pipe dreams that terrorism, a Middle East on fire, and an expansionist Russia can be brought to heel by personal diplomacy with a man he admires, Vladimir Putin. That “reset” has been tried. It didn’t work.
Ted Cruz has all of the attributes of Donald Trump but with a self-righteousness that trumps Trump. Cruz is called the true conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, when I think the appropriate appellation is the “true chameleon,” witness his position on illegal immigration where he was in favor of amnesty before he was opposed to it. Or, on support for defense and the military, when he voted against the defense budget then said on the campaign trail that he would unleash the strongest military in the world on ISIS to see if the “desert glowed in the dark.” Cruz also has the unique attribute of being able to alienate putative friends as well as real enemies. He is known as the most disliked man in the Senate and this just by his fellow Republicans. One is left to wonder what Democrats think of him.

While the Republicans lead the field this year in candidates beyond the pale of rational discourse, the Democrats don’t get a pass on this type of behavior when Bernie Sanders tries to convince the party faithful that European-style socialism really works and that America should give it a try. Poor Hillary Clinton. She must think she is in the midst of a year-long nightmare in which she is constantly forced to pander to the far left of her party who appear to be immersed in a 60-year fog of amnesia about the utter failure of socialism in one European country after another.

At a time when America desperately needs a President who can bring us together in words and deeds, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders will only widen the rift in political comity that threatens the very fabric of American representative government. None of those candidates has the background, the personality, or the instincts to forge intraparty, let alone interparty, compromise or consensus. None of the three is possessed of the qualities of leadership that allowed political opposites such as Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, and Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to find common ground for the common good.
​
As much as I fear for the health of our political system, I do feel encouraged by the fact that there are two electable candidates who do possess the attributes necessary to return sanity and reason to the political arena. Both occupy what remains as the “middle” of their respective parties and both have shown an ability to work with those in the opposition to forge sound governing policies.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio has shown an in-depth knowledge of domestic and international affairs and was part of the bipartisan coalition that supported President Obama on the trade pact as well being a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that tried to put together effective immigration reform. Rubio may be too “right” for Democratic tastes, just as he is too “left” for the “purity conservatives.” To my way of thinking, that makes him “just right.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, although not quite the political pragmatist of her husband, has shown an ability to form bipartisan friendships that made her one of the most popular senators in her years in the Senate. Known to be more of a practitioner of real politik than President Obama and certainly more hard line on defense and the use of force than he, Hillary should be far more effective in forging political compromises than the often aloof Barack Obama ever was. The left of the Democratic Party maligns Clinton as being a handmaiden of Wall Street, as too confrontational in foreign affairs, as too passive in the class warfarism that is dominating Democratic Party conversation. So while her moderation, her centrism, are anathema to radical liberalism, they seem just about right to me.
​
Given the choice of Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, I’ll stay true to my lifetime allegiance and vote Republican. Make that choice between Donald Trump or Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, and I’ll vote Clinton in a heartbeat. Self-respect trumps (sorry, I couldn’t resist) blind allegiance to a hijacked political philosophy. And I’ll cross my fingers that the outbreak of Boobus Americanus that has stained political discourse this election cycle will recede as Americans realize that who they vote for reflects who they are as Americans.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

In 1955, the year I was born, the stereotypical model of “the perfect woman” ranged from June Cleaver to Joan Harris of Mad Men, depending on with whom Ward was sleeping. In 2016, just over 60 years later, opportunities for women to achieve are limitless, especially in the United States. Over the course of history, the speed of this change seems quite remarkable. However, much of the progress of women has been concentrated in an elite corps of achievers. Entrance to the elite has been determined by personal sacrifice, ambition, and very hard work. Over the next sixty years, continued progress for women will be determined by spreading that success to a wider range of participants. The question is, what skill sets do the achievers possess that can be modeled for the next generation?
 
Balance:
​
How can a woman reaching for the height of career success balance her role as a mother, a wife, a sister, a friend, a partner? At the top of the ladder, it’s very difficult for any man or woman to balance an uber career with the role of being a parent without a great support system—be they friends, family members, or a spouse. Clearly, a choice must be made, and there will be some sacrifices on the part of both the mother and her support system. But perhaps there are options we have today that did not exist 60 years ago for men and women. And one of them is longevity. There are countless examples of highly successful, powerful individuals performing at exceptional levels. And these individuals are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s. If our lifespan is considerably longer than in the 1950s and 1960s, a career path takes on a different time dimension. Starting the climb while giving children a strong family foundation should work for men and women. Stepping on the accelerator a little later in life should also work. Perspective and patience in career-building will allow us to balance care for our children, which is job number one, with career advancement, which is important for women and men.
 
Financial Literacy:

Over almost thirty years in the financial industry, I have paid particular attention to the issue of women and financial literacy. Gone are the days when women can take a passive role to understanding all aspects of money management for a family. And older women should serve as role models and advisors to children and grandchildren, encouraging investments in 401(k) programs, Roth IRAs, and personal finance education. You will hear a great deal of noise this election season about social security as a retirement program. It was only meant to be a minimum safety net for retirees. In the past and in the future, each individual worker must be responsible for saving and investing money for their retirement.
 
Closing the Deal:

When I look at the women in our state and in national circles who have attained great success, they share a common attribute which I will call “closing the deal.” In business, education, philanthropy, and politics, these women are competing with men because they are smart, disciplined, and hard-working. But the edge of success has to do with the skill and courage to close the deal. The close could be asking for a contribution, closing a business deal, closing a contract negotiation, or reaching an agreement on behalf of a company or organization. Given traditional gender norms and societal expectations, it is a skill-set that many women struggle with, and it should be given more emphasis in business schools and training programs in all fields. There may be something challenging and different about how women make a strong close in business settings, but throughout history, we’ve always embraced innovation. And, as female leaders innovate to close the deal, they open opportunity for future generations of women—and men—to lead and prosper in our state and country.
 
So as I touch the 60th milestone, I see an America with expanded opportunities and exciting hope for the future. The next generation of leaders has had a history of more progressive gender roles and issues of diversity at all levels. My only regret is I will not be able to share in the excitement of the next sixty years of progress.

Jill Docking has worked in the financial services industry since 1988 and is a long-time resident of Wichita. She has been active in her community as a member of several boards, including: the Sedgwick County Historical Society, the African American Museum of Sedgwick County, Mid Kansas Simulation Center, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Sedgwick County, the University of Kansas Endowment, KU Medical School Wichita, the Dana Farber Advisory Board, and the Board of Trustees of Newman University. In 2007, Jill was appointed to the Kansas Board of Regents by Governor Kathleen Sebelius and served as Chair of the Regents. In 1999, she founded the Financial Fitness Foundation, a non-profit focused on teaching financial literacy in the K-12 school system. In 1993, Docking became the first woman to receive a gubernatorial appointment as the Commanding General of the Kansas Cavalry.

I began in my current job on August 1, 2012, working on behalf of Kansas’ private colleges. In the three years since, there have been forty-five incidents of gun violence on college campuses, thirteen of which led to loss of life for individuals other than the perpetrator.

After two more of these horrific events this fall – one at Delta State University in Mississippi, and then again last week at Umpqua Community College in Oregon – I have found myself pondering what should be done and what can be done beyond wringing our hands and shallowly hoping that not saying the shooter’s name or reporting it publicly will somehow lead to fewer of these tragedies. This bit of magical thinking – that by not speaking Chris Harper-Mercer’s name will somehow convince other potential mass shooters that they won’t become famous through their assault – assumes that there is some sort of logic and rational thinking underlying these actions. But I can’t see logic or reason in these. Instead, avoiding his name strikes me as blindly casting about for something, anything, to do regardless its absurdity because we have hit such an impasse on actually taking any responsible steps to address the issue.

The easy, nearly painless activism of avoiding his name stands in stark contrast to the extremely difficult debate over an important issue that has individuals on both sides with deeply felt values and beliefs. Truly solving something like creating a society where these mass school shootings no longer take place will require hard choices that all come with some or all of us giving up some part of those values and beliefs. But instead of taking that road, we do something simple and symbolic and then we will move on. This makes me exceedingly sad and worried about the future of colleges in Kansas and the safety and security of our students. Because every policy so far seems to follow a level of wishful thinking rather than clear-eyed realism.

In Kansas, we’re just over one year away from the deadline for all our Regents universities to begin allowing concealed weapons in campus buildings. Last spring, the legislature removed essentially all restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons anyway – there’s no longer any training required, and there’s no licensure. In fact, while concealed weapons no longer require a license, here are a few things that Kansas requires me to have a license for:

• Casting a vote in a Kansas election
• Becoming an accountant
• Becoming a hair stylist
• Becoming a massage therapist
• Opening a car dealership
• Going fishing​

As far as I know, none of these activities comes as fraught with danger if in the wrong hands as a firearm. But only concealed weapons are license-free.

Back in 2012, I was optimistic that our political leaders would look at the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School and elsewhere and see reason. Everyone one of us knows the emotional and psychological turmoil that exists on college campuses. Even for the most well-adjusted college students struggle with balancing academic work, living away from home for the first time, and social anxieties from interacting with a far more energetic and far more diverse community than they may have ever encountered before with far more freedom from “adult” supervision than ever before. Insert the influence of alcohol into the mix and the dangers grow even higher. As much as we might wish it, college is already not necessarily a place where “rational thoughts and behavior” always comes first. Allowing handguns in our dorms, classrooms, dining halls, libraries, and student centers will come with more risk than reward.

I know the argument made in opposition: if there were more guns on campus, than everyone would be safer because those who wished to commit mass shootings like at Umpqua would choose to pursue their crime elsewhere. Just as the hope that erasing the name Chris Harper-Mercer from the newspapers and our lexicon strikes me as foolhardily asking for reason to triumph over passion in the cases of gun violence on campus, arming everyone on campus – or at least presenting the possibility that anyone might be armed – has a similar ring of expecting these individuals to act rationally and predictably.

I long for a reasonable discussion, at least in Kansas, on how to proscribe gun possession in and around college campuses with the least amount of infringement on students’ rights. I know this will require me to sacrifice some of my deeply held convictions. I hope those who fall on the other side of this debate are willing to listen so the avoidable tragedy at Umpqua Community College (and Delta State, and Santa Monica College, and others) doesn’t become the avoidable tragedy here in Kansas.

About the Author: Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Fund, where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. celebrated its Golden Anniversary this year, marking the 50 year period it has been run by the current Chairman of the Board, Warren Buffett and his partner, Vice Chairman, Charlie Munger. During their tenure, the stock value has moved from $19 to $146,186. That was on the strength of an average increase in value of 19.4% compounded annually. The fact that Munger is more than 90 years old and Buffett is in his late 80’s causes no small degree of concern among the thousands of investors and employees that have enjoyed their ride with Berkshire’s success. They don’t want to see a good thing end when these remarkable managers step down or pass away.

The company’s 2014 Annual Report addresses the issue of future leadership in a fascinating and highly effective way. The report has two stories embedded in it. One, written by Buffett, is titled, “Berkshire: Past, Present, and Future (Page 24).” The other, written by Munger, is titled, “Vice Chairman’s Thoughts: Past and Future (Page 39).”

After working together for 50 years, it was no surprise that the two stories (which had been prepared by each author without collaboration of the other) told the same story with only stylistic differences. 

There were several threads running through the past, present, and future sections of their stories, including investment strategy and guiding principles, but I will focus on the issue of the leadership succession. What follows is the “gist” of the succession plan I got from reading their stories.

My Version of the Berkshire Hathaway Succession Plan Story:

“After a few bad acquisitions, Berkshire began to focus on selecting well-managed, profitable companies and leaving their successful managers and operating policies in place. Thus, over the years, they developed a large cadre of seasoned and successful leaders operating in a highly decentralized system. While the total number of employees grew to over 340,000, the corporate staff was limited to 25. Good managers were given the freedom to manage a wide variety of companies without interference from headquarters.

Presently, several corporate leaders of Berkshire-controlled firms have been identified to have the competence to run the entire company. 

When Buffett and Munger exit, the company is prepared to move forward with a new management team selected from within. Stockholders and employees can be confident the company will continue with the values and management style that made it one of the most successful businesses in the world.”

Concluding Comment:

The Berkshire succession plan story is easy to remember and can be retold to thousands of investors and employees who have a stake in Berkshire’s future. It should go a long way in setting the stage for transitioning to a new management team and put the minds of many investors and stakeholders at ease. It will be a key factor in retaining investor and employee confidence in the future of the company.

Hey, it worked for me! I was spared having to read the customary voluminous corporate strategic plan, topped off with vision and mission statements full of buzz words. The vision of Berkshire’s corporate leadership succession plan is clear, memorable, and reassuring.

Stories are perhaps the most powerful tool available to a leader. It should be no surprise the leaders of one of the most successful businesses in the world chose to tell a story about the future of their company, instead of wordsmithing a vision statement.

Rather than take my word for this, I suggest you put the premise to the test. Please go back and read the Lawrence-Douglas County draft vision statement from my previous post and the Berkshire succession plan story once each. Then try to tell both to a friend without notes.

Joe Harkins’ career in public service spanned 50 years, including his service as the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as well as the Director of the Water Office during the administration of Governor John W. Carlin. He retired in 2002 as the Director of the Public Management Center at the University of Kansas. After a short break, he returned to work first serving as a special assistant to the Governor then retiring again after completing a term on the Corporation Commission for the State of Kansas.

In the 1990’s, vision and mission statements came into vogue when they were considered an essential element of Total Quality Management (TQM) programs. One of the first TQM implementation steps usually involved assigning a committee of employees to craft vision and mission statements.

The fact that many organizations never succeeded in differentiating between vision and mission statements notwithstanding, these exercises often failed to produce anything more than a string of buzzwords embedded in a set of sentences that, upon close examination, said little or nothing about the future of the organization. In spite of their deficiencies, they were frequently memorialized on business cards, used as introductions to budget documents, or prominently displayed on the walls of high traffic areas for all to see and read. The trouble was, it was unusual to see anyone stopping to read one.

Now, I am not arguing that all vision statements were an exercise in futility that created more obfuscation than clarity. Some were very useful and served a good purpose. But crafting a single statement that effectively describes an organization’s desired growth, advancement, or development is a very difficult challenge and there is a more effective method available. Before I get to the alternative, let me share with you a draft of a vision statement that is currently a work in progress. I do not present this as a critical comment but merely to demonstrate the problem faced by any group trying to draft a vision statement. The following draft was prepared by a committee in the process of updating the Lawrence-Douglas County Horizon 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

“The City of Lawrence and Rural Douglas County is one of the most desirable places in the United States to call home. A well-educated community with a unique free-state spirit, we are diverse, publicly engaged, and boldly innovative. We are prosperous, with full employment and a broad tax base. Our development is human-scale and our neighborhoods are livable, allowing people downtown to age in place. We have ample choices for safe, efficient transportation including bicycling, walking, and transit. The City’s lively and historic downtown attracts residents and visitors for commerce and cultural arts. Our citizens value preserving and enhancing the natural environments for our enjoyment and for future generations. The proximity of rural and agricultural land to the city provides beauty and respite, and we enjoy the economic and health benefits of a robust local food system. We make Lawrence and rural Douglas County a place where creativity thrives, sustainability is a way of life, and community pride is contagious.”

The strong sense of community pride comes through loudly and clearly. However, the statement does not provide a mental image of what the authors hope to see the city and county become in the future. Documenting current strengths is a good starting place, but vision statements are supposed to be about the future.

I hope the authors keep working to produce something that will help them share their vision. But, rather than continuing to wordsmith a vision statement, I suggest the alternative I alluded to above. I recommend they write at least one story that addresses major issues the city and county must deal with in the future. Potential relevant subjects include the issue of jail crowding due to the incarceration of mentally ill persons and/or the development of adequate police facilities. Perhaps several short stories that each address a priority issue would be more effective than a single one covering multiple topics. There is no rule that limits the number of stories needed to communicate effectively. And this approach is far more effective than jamming multiple topics into a single and usually useless vision statement.   

Joe Harkins’ career in public service spanned 50 years, including his service as the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as well as the Director of the Water Office during the administration of Governor John W. Carlin. He retired in 2002 as the Director of the Public Management Center at the University of Kansas. After a short break, he returned to work first serving as a special assistant to the Governor then retiring again after completing a term on the Corporation Commission for the State of Kansas.

I never intended to have a career in public service, one that involved running for elected office 8 times. I don’t like being the center of attention. My wedding day felt awkward. But here I am now retired after almost 30 years as an elected official both at the local and state level.

I am so grateful for the many opportunities that I have had over those years to work with an amazing array of people from all walks of life with interests and issues as varied as they were. If I were to sum up in a few words the most valuable part of this experience for me, it would be this: being able to say that through collaboration and cooperation we made a difference. Sometimes it is a small difference when, at the city level, we could respond to the need to place a stop sign to protect children as they walked from their neighborhood to their school. I still think about the debate over those signs as I stop at several of those locations. We did traffic counts and looked at the enrollment data for the schools to determine that the signs were justified. But I really think we placed those signs because we had grieving parents in two separate incidents where children were killed trying to cross the busy streets.

Other decisions have had more far reaching results, but one thing remained consistent across the board: tough policy choices should always be made through listening and collaboration as well as the use of good, reliable data. Let me just run through a few of the important decisions and policy changes that I was able to work on over my tenure in office and share how we were able to arrive at each outcome.

Making Decisions Through Collaboration, Personal Stories, and Good Data:

When I took office as a City Commissioner in Lawrence, Kansas in 1985, the debate over second-hand smoke was prominent at the local and state level. We were getting more and more pressure to enact indoor smoking bans in public buildings. After hearing from a lot of folks and doing our own research to justify our decision, we did pass the ban on smoking in city buildings just prior to the state legislature enacting the same requirement statewide. It was a small step toward getting rid of smoking in all public spaces, like bars and restaurants, which would eventually happen, but making that first important policy decision paved the way for more comprehensive controls. 

At the local level, there really is a lot of attention on issues and with only 5 people making decisions, lots of pressure too, on everything from zoning, to speed limits, master planning, sewer line back-ups into basements (those folks can really bend your ear!). When I was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1990, I was one of 125 members, and the issues weren’t as immediate nor, as only one of a larger group, were my decisions under a microscope as they had been at the local level. That isn’t to say we didn’t have some important decisions that received a lot of public scrutiny. We changed the way schools are financed based on a court decision that the funding was out of compliance with our state constitution, which emphasizes that education needs to be equally accessible to all students. That change is now being challenged and the financing of schools is once again front and center with the court, our legislators, and governor.

We passed legislation to provide for school breakfast programs (Kansas ranked 49th out of 50 states in providing breakfast to students). We tried to pass laws requiring riders of motorcycles to wear helmets (still don’t have that requirement in state law). We worked on numerous bills relating to health and health insurance issues: mental health parity, patient protection laws, portability of coverage, and review of health plan decisions.

Debate for most, if not all, of these decisions required proponents and opponents to be well-versed in their positions and ready to defend them with good data, but sometimes personal stories can be even more persuasive. For example, we passed an insurance mandate that prostate cancer screening had to be a covered benefit in plans sold in Kansas, and one of the main reasons it passed, at least in the Kansas Senate, is that two of our members had been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer.

We had a session-long debate on mental health parity. We needed good data, personal stories, and professional advice and input to counter the stigma about mental illness, especially depression. The common health belief seemed to be that treatment really didn’t help and was too expensive to be included in insurance the same way other illnesses were covered. During that same period of time, the Mid-America Business Coalition on Health—a group comprised of human resource professionals from the biggest employers in the Kansas City area—conducted a review of their claims data for their employees to determine how to better manage costs and outcomes. They really thought they would find that cardio-vascular illnesses would be identified as the category with the greatest expenditures, and they were surprised when depression was the culprit. They evaluated the co-morbidities and lost productivity and realized that if their employees didn’t receive the appropriate care for depression, the long-term cost to the employer increased. Based on their findings, they implemented changes to ensure that depression was diagnosed and properly treated.

Their experience helped to make the case for changes in our requirements for the treatment of several types of mental illness, including depression. The law on the books at the time had a lifetime cap on outpatient treatment for mental illness of $7,500. And the limit on inpatient treatment was 30 days annually. So once the outpatient limit was reached, the only recourse was to be admitted to an inpatient hospital for treatment. So we looked at other states to determine their requirements, and Texas provided a good comparison. They had recently made changes to their mandates and substituted dollar limits for day limits. For outpatient and inpatient, the day limits were 60 days. I tried to push for the same limit in Kansas but realized that making that big of a change would be hard to get passed. So we went for halfway between our current 30-day inpatient annual limit and the Texas 60-day limit and settled on 45 days for both. The changes were heavily opposed by the health insurers, but in the end, the current lifetime limit of $7,500 and 30-day for inpatient treatment really couldn’t be justified. Interestingly, the leader of the changes in Texas was a legislator who had been treated for depression and was a great example of how intervention can make a difference. 

This policy decision was a good example of the saying, “half a loaf is better than no loaf.” Day limits are still not parity with other services, but at the time, we were making progress (this was 2000). And fortunately, the Affordable Care Act made additional improvements.

Being Cautious of Unreliable Information:

Throughout my legislative experience, we were also able to get things done because, at the end of the day, good data and information made a difference, and we were willing to work together to find a common or middle ground. Unfortunately, too often today there is a media frenzy around some policy issues that make it difficult to get beyond the misinformation to have an informed debate. I am concerned that we are losing the ability to rely on research and informed decision-making in the political debate. Case in point: the debate around the importance of childhood vaccinations.

Unfortunately, we now have a controversy over whether childhood immunizations are needed. The Kansas City Star on February 11, 2015 did a reader poll, and I was amazed at the results. On the question of whether children should not be allowed to attend public schools unless they are vaccinated 57% did not agree while 32% did. On another statement: “The anti-vaccine crowd places their personal freedom above the good of others, thereby threatening public health,” 59% strongly disagreed while 33% strongly agreed. Another statement raises concerns about how research can support important requirements like vaccinations: “Studies that say vaccines are safe and do not cause autism are flawed, sometimes because they are supported by large pharmaceutical companies.” The response, 62% agreed or strongly agreed and 38% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is hard to get past these kind of entrenched beliefs so that reputable studies can have an impact.  

Some years ago, we had a study that appeared to demonstrate that women who had undergone abortions were more likely to develop breast cancer. That study, while discredited, has been used in statehouses—and still is—to justify the restrictions on abortion as protection for the woman from developing breast cancer. When we can’t trust the research to help us make informed decisions or just chose to ignore it because it doesn’t suit our agenda, I wonder where we are headed. Now more than ever, in this age of instant media, sensationalized news, and pseudo-news shows, we need research that is objective and authoritative. Laws are being passed by lawmakers who don’t know what to believe. Kansas just passed the most restrictive abortion regulation in the country, followed by Oklahoma, which could potentially place a woman’s life in jeopardy and used non-medical terms to sensationalize the discussion, making it difficult for even thoughtful legislators to do the right thing. This will most certainly play out in court, costing unnecessary public dollars to defend a law motivated by a narrow political agenda and not public well-being.

Making and Committing to the Decision:

Whether it’s through personal stories and experiences or good data, eventually, you must take the information available and commit to the right decision, regardless of the consequences. However, no one ever promised that doing the right thing would always be easy, which brings me back to my first term in office as a City Commissioner. 

The same year we took action on public smoking, we also had a tragic suicide of a young coed from the University of Kansas. She was being treated for depression, and one day, she decided she just couldn’t cope anymore. She went into a local gun shop, bought a handgun and ammunition, walked a few blocks to a nearby public park, and used that newly-purchased weapon to end her life. One of my fellow Commissioners (there were 5 in all) brought the incident to our public meeting and requested that we look at enacting a waiting period for the purchase of guns. His point was that if she couldn’t have obtained possession of the gun at the time of purchase, she might have been helped and could still be alive today. It made sense to me. So we had an ordinance drafted and, a few weeks later, scheduled the debate. 

It was during this time that we started getting threats at our homes, one of our Commissioners had his tires slashed (he had suggested that maybe we should regulate knives too), and our local police started patrolling the neighborhoods where we each lived. The week before the debate and vote on the ordinance, our local paper started calling each of us to see what we intended to do and how we planned to vote. Two said they were for the ordinance, two said they were opposed, and I said I wanted to wait to hear the pros and cons at the meeting before deciding. I thought I should keep an open mind, but honestly, after the threats and intimidation, I was pretty sure I would vote to enact. Being identified as the swing vote days before the meeting was not a good thing. I received more threatening calls and was told that if I supported the waiting period, my political career would be over. The NRA-influenced opposition said they would see to it that I would never again be elected to public office. And they did openly oppose me each of my next 7 elections. I always received an “F” on their scorecard that was sent out to voters. 

From that early-in-my-career experience, I discovered the importance of standing up to fierce opposition and doing the right thing. Had I lost subsequent bids for elective office because of that vote, I would do it again. What I learned is that if you are afraid of losing an election, maybe you shouldn’t be running. If you fear losing, then at some point you will compromise your values, and that can be a slippery slope that will make subsequent tough decisions even tougher.

Sandy Praeger was elected Insurance Commissioner three times in 2002, 2006, and 2010. She retired from office in January, 2015. While commissioner, she was active with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and served as its president in 2008. She had several opportunities to provide the state perspective on the health reform bills that were being debated in Congress, including the current Affordable Care Act that passed in March 2010. Prior to becoming insurance commissioner, Praeger served in the Kansas House and Senate. In the Senate, she chaired the Public Health and Welfare Committee and the Insurance Committee. Her career in politics began at the local level where she served on the Lawrence City Commission and one term as Mayor.

Fifty-five years ago this summer, I was at a family gathering in West Palm Beach, Florida. I heard reports of Cubans arriving in Miami—fleeing the Revolution. I called Norka Fejo to get more of the story. Norka was the Director of Christian Education in Cuba for the United Methodist Church and was living in Miami. She told me that she planned to meet some of the refugees that afternoon and asked if I would like to go along. Miami was only a little over an hour away, and I could use a break from family for a while, so I said yes. 

She took me to the hotel where those arriving from Cuba were being greeted, and we met Luis. Luis was a fishing boat captain who had arrived just hours before with a boatload of refugees. He told a captivating story. 

The day before, forty Cubans boarded his boat, ostensibly to go fishing. They carried no luggage and only a sack lunch to avoid suspicion. Luis charted a course straight through the U.S. Naval submarine fields. One submarine surfaced, intercepted them, gave them food and water, and sent them on their way toward Miami. They had arrived safely.

As Luis told me the story, he became more and more excited and, at one point, I could tell he was talking directly to me. Norka interpreted. “He says he is going back tomorrow to get more refugees and is asking if you would like to go with him.” That would have been more than I was bargaining for. I declined.

Forty-seven years later, times had changed. Cuban revolutionaries controlled the government. The United States government long ago begun a campaign of regime change. It imposed an economic trade and travel blockade designed to keep Cuba poor and to prevent U.S. Citizens from traveling there. The embargo was the compelling reason for my trip to Cuba in 2007.   

I had met Rev. Lucius Walker, Director of Pastors for Peace, an interfaith organization which opposed the embargo because of the unjust economic burden it placed on Cuban citizens and for its restriction on U.S. citizens’ freedom to travel. Walker's authentic spiritual depth, his love of people, his quiet determination, and his capable leadership was transparent. Since 1992, he had guided Friendshipment Caravans, taking humanitarian aid and visitors to Cuba without the required license in protest of the embargo. I was hooked. It was now the time for me to go to Cuba.

One hundred twenty-five of us crossed from McAllen, Texas into Reynosa, Mexico in the early hours of July 18th. We were a caravan of twelve vehicles, most of them used school buses, and carried a hundred tons of humanitarian aid. We traveled three hundred fifty miles to the port city of Tampico where in the wee hours of the morning we loaded our cargo, including several of the buses, aboard a freighter. We boarded a Russian-built Ilyushin 62 jet for a brief flight to Havana.

The Cuban customs agents stamped our tickets instead of our passports to save us trouble with our own U.S. Customs when we crossed back into the U.S. later. We divided ourselves into three groups to facilitate travel, and the Cuban chapter of our adventure began. During the next nine days, we traveled through three provinces meeting people and visiting hospitals, schools, art centers, museums, and community gardens. We worshiped at a Presbyterian Church in Sancti Spiritu, toured the Che Guevera Museum in Vila Clara, were guests at a block party, and strolled along the famous Malecon waterfront. On our last night there, we attended the Medical School Graduation ceremony where doctors from all over the world, given free medical education in Cuba, graduated. They would return to their home countries to serve the poor and the sick. 

The next day, we were quiet on the flight from Havana to Tampico. The ride from Tampico to the U.S. border was even quieter. Our moment of truth would come when we attempted to reenter the U.S. By then, we would have violated the embargo and would face possible penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment.

We were respectful as we each faced a customs agent. We offered only our passport and customs declaration and had agreed not to answer any leading questions about our trip. We passed through without exception and without incident. I am convinced this was because of the respect Pastors for Peace has gained through the years. We challenged the embargo, but we were otherwise completely respectful and law-abiding.

Back home in Colorado, interest in the mission grew. Over a seven year period, we collected close to half a million dollars’ worth of medical and educational supplies, other humanitarian aid, and five school buses which we sent with subsequent Friendshipment Caravans. The last school bus we sent is handicapped accessible and is being used by an orthopedic hospital in Havana.

The twenty-sixth Caravan will make its way to Cuba this July. The Caravans will continue until the embargo is completely lifted.

I tend to stay on the sidelines of social justice issues. I do, however, reserve the right to help the poor and to travel freely to make friends beyond borders. Although the trip to Cuba violated the embargo, I see it as an active, nonviolent alternative foreign policy action—​a call for freedom and justice that was worth the risk.

A sometime Storyteller, Pastor Max Hale has served over half a century in ministry in various settings, including the military, the campus, and the local church. You may follow him on his                                         blog: www.avirtualfrontporch.com

For more than a century, our country has tried to pass some form of health coverage for all Americans. Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt, to Nixon, Clinton, and now President Obama have recognized the importance of providing affordable health care so that families aren’t forced to declare bankruptcy because they accessed needed medical services and then couldn’t afford to pay for them. The Affordable Care Act was a very politically-charged piece of legislation, passing with no Republican votes, even though I know Republicans, especially in the U.S. Senate, who would have been willing to vote for something had the opportunity for compromise been afforded them.

As the Republican-elected Insurance Commissioner in Kansas, I had numerous opportunities to comment on the law. While far from perfect, I felt the ACA moved us in the right direction, so I consistently spoke in favor of implementation, while at the same time recognizing that as the law matures there will be needed changes to be made. I was criticized by many of our Republican legislators for supporting the ACA, but to me, the alternative of repealing it and doing nothing to address the access to care for Americans was simply not an option. 

The recent United States Supreme Court case demonstrated one of the law’s imperfections that, in Congress’ haste to pass it, was overlooked. Chief Justice Roberts himself, in writing for the Court, acknowledged that the ACA, “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.” However, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court looked at the intent of the entire law and upheld the crucial piece that provides health insurance subsidies to all qualifying Americans. As Justice Roberts wrote, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former and avoids the latter.”

When the Court’s decision was released, I do think that many in the current Congress had to have breathed a sigh of relief, because, had the subsidies been denied in the states with a federal exchange, chaos in the marketplace would have ensued. Here’s why: Unless some delay in the implementation had been included, within 25 days, those citizens in federal exchanges would have seen their health insurance premiums increase dramatically, most likely causing many to drop their coverage and stop paying premiums altogether. Those companies that priced their products based on receiving the subsidy for their enrollees would have seen a big loss in revenue. The only enrollees likely to keep their coverage would have been those folks who know they need coverage no matter the cost, i.e. older, sicker enrollees. Absent some quick fix, those states would have experienced what is called in insurance vernacular a “death spiral” where only the sick stay with coverage, more claims have to be paid, premiums have to increase to pay the increased claims, more drop coverage, and soon the insurance policies are unsustainable.

I would hope, now that the challenges to the law have been settled, that Congress would accept that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay and move on to making the necessary adjustments that could and should be addressed through the legislative process. 

One such criticism of the law that could be re-visited is the way age is treated. The ACA says insurance has to be priced based on an age rating of 3:1. In other words, an older person cannot be charged more than 3 times what a younger, healthier person is charged. This causes many younger folks today to pay more than they might have paid before the ACA. Congress could change the age rating rule to one that is wider, perhaps 5 or 6:1. This could still protect older citizens under the age of 65 from very high costs, because they still cannot be rated based on their health status, but it would also help offset the higher premium costs that younger folks could be paying under the current system. On behalf of our National Association of Insurance Commissioners, I offered this change during one of the Senate hearings on the ACA in July of 2009, but it was not included.

I also would hope that Congress and the administration could continue to work on making improvements to the delivery system in order to support policies that reward quality of health care over quantity. For example, health care providers need to be rewarded for reducing hospital readmissions and for improving outcomes, and several pilot projects are demonstrating that this works. When this happens, the insurance companies have fewer claims to pay, and those savings can be shared with the providers that are helping to create the savings. The ACA includes other pilot projects that reward better coordination of care, which can also reduce costs and improve outcomes for patients. Congress needs to look at the results of those pilot projects and find ways to incentivize the delivery system to take advantage of those positive results. 

It is long past time for Congress to put politics aside and begin to find ways to compromise and solve problems. This will take leadership that is willing to step up and do the right thing and explain to their constituents why it is the right thing. As a nation, we could no longer accept a status quo where too many of our citizens went without needed health care because they couldn’t afford it and couldn’t even afford the insurance that could help provide the needed health care services, especially preventive services for chronic conditions. The ACA begins the process of dealing with our ailing health care system. Now, as a nation, we must address the expense of our health care system which is, per person, double what other countries pay for health care for their citizens. Those countries, by the way, have a much better health ranking for their citizens than we do in our county. So we are paying double and not getting anywhere close to the result of better health for our citizens that other countries enjoy. We need our leaders to step up and begin to look for solutions and not be driven by political ideology that produces a stalemate where nothing is accomplished.

As the necessary changes are proposed, they will meet resistance and will need to be justified. Research, data, controlled studies, medical education, and training will all need to be used to explain what works, what doesn’t, and how to appropriately rein in costs while improving outcomes.

The end goal is to have a health care system that is affordable, accountable, efficient, and effective that has the support of the providers, patients, politicians, and the public. Without that, support for the necessary changes will be hard to come by and we will continue to nibble around the edges. 

Sandy Praeger was elected Insurance Commissioner three times in 2002, 2006, and 2010. She retired from office in January, 2015. While commissioner, she was active with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and served as its president in 2008. She had several opportunities to provide the state perspective on the health reform bills that were being debated in Congress, including the current Affordable Care Act that passed in March 2010. Prior to becoming insurance commissioner, Praeger served in the Kansas House and Senate. In the Senate she chaired the Public Health and Welfare Committee and the Insurance Committee. Her career in politics began at the local level where she served on the Lawrence City Commission and one term as Mayor.