Controversy over the state of Kansas’ KPERS retirement system seems to be a perennial part of the legislative process.  Each year seems to bring new legislative proposals which cause anxiety among KPERS participants… both current employees who are paying into the system and retirees who are now receiving benefits.

The problem started years ago when the Kansas legislature began to shirk its statutory responsibility for funding KPERS.  While employees were required to contribute the entire percentage of their pay they had originally agreed to, the legislature shorted KPERS by making a smaller employer contribution than the state had agreed to.  That contribution rate had been calculated back then as the amount necessary to keep KPERS solvent.

Over time the legislature’s underfunding created a huge problem for KPERS and the result was a retirement system which was billions of dollars away from being actuarially sound.  That posed a real threat to the future retirement benefits of thousands of state and local government employees.    Fortunately the legislature in 2012 recognized that something had to be done and a law was passed that increased contribution rates for both employers and employees.  It was designed to eventually return KPERS to fiscal health, and that will happen if this and future legislatures live up to their commitment.  I was pleased to vote for the bill back then, and I consider it the most significant piece of good government legislation to come out of that session.

The budget which passed the legislature last week gives Governor Brownback the flexibility to delay the fourth quarter payment into KPERS (due by the end of the fiscal year on June 30) until later in the new fiscal year.  But if he does that (and I believe the dire fiscal circumstances of the state will force him to do so) then the delayed payment must be made into KPERS, with 8% annual interest, no later than September 30.

This is not the same thing as borrowing from KPERS, which implies that the state would be withdrawing past contributions to KPERS and using them for other purposes.  That has not happened and will never happen.  The IRS has very strict rules governing retirement plans such as KPERS, and withdrawing previous contributions would be a clear violation of those rules.  It would put the entire system in jeopardy.  From the perspective of the IRS, that is a much more serious event than diverting contributions before they go into KPERS.

The truth is KPERS is the only absolutely secure lockbox in Topeka.  The IRS regulations make it impossible for any legislature or governor to start using KPERS as a piggy bank.  If contributions are delayed or reduced, that means it will take longer for KPERS to reach fiscal soundness but it does not put anyone’s retirement at risk in the foreseeable future.  Unfortunately that is exactly what is currently happening.  In fiscal year 2014 Governor Brownback reduced the state’s contribution to KPERS.  And the budget passed just last week continues that practice for FY 2016 and 2017.  By doing so the state is delaying the date at which KPERS becomes solvent.  That fact alone was reason enough for me to vote no on the budget.

However there is another reason to be concerned about delaying or reducing state contributions.  Doing so is a huge red flag regarding the fiscal situation the state is currently in.  If we can’t afford to make four quarterly KPERS payments this fiscal year, what are the odds we will be able to make five payments plus interest on one of them in the next fiscal year?  The fact that this move is even being contemplated is a manifestation of a serious fiscal crisis within state government.

Aside from the fiscal red flag there is another troubling aspect to this practice.  Agreed-to KPERS contribution rates constitute an agreement between employer and employee.  For the state of Kansas to shirk its responsibility and reduce its current or future contribution rates while employees and other government employers are making their full contribution represents a serious breach of ethics and may in fact be illegal.  We ought not to do that.

State Representative Don Hineman, 118th District
[email protected]
785-296-7636    

Anti-Common Core sentiment in the Kansas Legislature has resulted in another bill that would direct Kansas schools to develop new standards—yet again.  This action appears driven by a general antipathy for the federal government’s 15 years of meddling in state education policy.

Education has always been and remains a “state’s right.” President Bush extorted policy compliance by tying it to federal Title money. While Common Core was developed by the chief school officers—state commissioners and superintendents across the country—it became a federal curriculum when it was tied to federal education money under the Race to the Top competition. Despite renaming No Child Left Behind as the Every Student Succeeds Act, the NCLB policies and curricula have become embedded in state education regulations in 43 states. That includes Kansas where the College and Career Ready Standards are Common Core-inspired.

After hearing a Common Core opponent from Wisconsin testify, the Kansas House Education Committee took the anti-Common Core HB 2676 and moved it into Substitute House Bill 2292. This bill also requires that Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs be aligned with the newly-required Kansas standards.

While this anti-fed action is simple-minded knee-jerk politics, the opposition’s sky-is-falling response is hardly more credible. Both sides are under the illusion that changing paperwork dramatically changes teaching practices in the classroom. Both sides are wrong.

In 1987, the State Board of Education was one of the first states to mandate sex and AIDS education. In 2005, the KSBE removed this state mandate. Those teachers who had previously included sex education before 1987 taught it competently before, during and after the mandate. Those who were not well-trained in sex education adopted anemic Sex Respect programs and dropped the topic as soon as the mandate ended. Policies changed. Classroom practices did not.

In 1999-2000, I was on the Science Standards Committee that rewrote the second revision. That was the time the State Board removed the evolution section and made national news. Two years later, after another Board election, evolution was returned. When Kansas biology teachers met for their annual meetings, it was obvious that removing evolution from the standards had increased, not decreased, the extent evolution was taught in biology classes. With the highest belief in evolution of any state surveyed, Kansas biology teachers integrated evolution into every lesson they taught. The late Professor John Moore of UC-Riverside told me to expect the Board action to cause an increase in evolution teaching. He was correct.

It is difficult for folks in high positions to realize that in a profession, practice is not determined by directives from above, but by the education of the professionals. Education schools also appear gullible to this “better education through paperwork” myth. But even if you legislate that we teach that the earth is flat, evolution is wrong, and global warming does not exist, the competent professional teacher is not going to comply. What teachers teach in the classroom is dependent on their professional training. Simply, a science education has more power than legislators or state board members.

There is only one worldwide universal science. It is the same chart of chemical elements that hangs in classrooms worldwide. And gravity does not work differently in Russia. The Advanced Placement curriculum was developed long before state standards and the International Baccalaureate  curriculum is a product of Europe.

I have no love of the educationist Next Generation Science Standards that omit animals, plants, microbes and human anatomy and physiology. But good biology teachers go ahead and teach this content anyway. Professional teachers can ignore the NGSS and they can ignore any new Kansas standards as well.

Kansas does not need to waste $9 million and two years of professionals’ time writing more standards. Indeed, issues such as this are the jurisdiction of the State Board of Education. They are none of the Kansas Legislature’s business.