It’s starting to become apparent that Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly has devised a new tool to use to run the state that is essentially managed by a Republican-heavy Legislature.

Of course, Kansas government is basically run, its policies set, its benefits delivered by a majority of a quorum in legislative committees and a majority of members of the House and Senate.

Barring a veto (see last year’s two tax bills) which drives up the votes needed to override the governor, probably one of the most subtle tools is creation by a two- or three-page executive order which establishes “the Governor’s Council” on, well, whatever she wants.

In the first year of her administration, Kelly has made clear that she’s using that “Governor’s Council” to propose tax policy for the state and Medicaid expansion.

Now those councils are just advisory, they come up with policy for their assigned subjects and that policy is going to become the governor’s policy for the state.

Nope, it doesn’t get anything passed, but those council recommendations become a fence for the Kansas Legislature, setting boundaries for lawmakers’ actions. Approve most of whatever those “Governor’s Councils” propose, and it’s likely those bills will become law.

Get outside that fence, and the governor can veto a bill and cite—at length—that a specialized study group (and because a handful of Republicans is on those councils, she can refer to them as “nonpartisan”) considered and rejected those provisions.

Not a bad tactic.

Kelly’s first council, dealing with tax reform, has started its exhaustive look at Kansas tax policy, whom is taxed, what is taxed and what isn’t. It’s a big issue that will paint what tax changes produce…and what those changes may do to the state’s economy that most of us wouldn’t have thought of.

For example, continuing to under-fund the Kansas Department of Transportation doesn’t just take less money but it also is likely to damage the state’s economy through depreciating roads used for getting state products to out-of-state buyers, getting Kansans to their jobs, and even contributing to inadequate recreational bike trails to give cyclists a reason to stay in Kansas or come to Kansas to spend their lives.

Oh, and those roads that are now getting a little makeup with an inch or two of new asphalt and striping are actually deteriorating and will at some point require expensive rebuilding from the dirt to the road surface.

Now, does that sound like tax policy? No, but roads that are deteriorating faster than they are being preserved call for tax money to be spent.

And this week Kelly gives an introductory welcome to the Governor’s Council on Medicaid Expansion. That panel will, of course, propose expansion of Medicaid–we call it KanCare–and what that expansion should look like.

That’ll put some fences around the Legislature’s plans for expanding Medicaid which the House passed last session…and which the Senate never considered.

Look for the panel, of course, to deal with the social issues of caring for the health-care needs of the state’s poor, and then underline that expansion and accompanying federal funding with the possibility of more Kansas hospitals closing, jobs leaving small communities, and residents and workers leaving, too, with dire economic effects.

And look for the panel to disapprove legislative efforts to hinder that expansion through any number of provisions that would prohibit Kansans from becoming eligible for expanded Medicaid—like pre-existing conditions, or work requirements and such…

So, it’s just not the governor proposing tax and Medicaid plans, it’s a bipartisan council that helps draw fences around Medicaid legislation.

This governance by “council” might get interesting…

Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com

I’m not a very opinionated man, but I do have a few annoyances. I try hard to keep these “pet peeves” on their leashes, but occasionally they break free.

Bad signs really irritate me; hard to read, too small, homemade looking, bad signs! For instance, a bad “for sale” sign might as well say” I really don’t want to sell this, but my wife won’t let it stay, so after you’ve read this sign, please just drive away.”

Speaking of bad signs, a major “pet peeve” of mine is trespassing and hunting without permission, and with the myriad of fall hunting seasons already underway, allow me to offer some pertinent information. I am a hunter and I have been a land owner, so I’ve been on both sides of this “fence” so to speak. Are you land owners and sportsmen aware that regulating trespassing and hunting on private property DOES NOT even require a “bad sign” but in fact, requires no sign at all?

In Kansas, law requires hunters to gain land owner permission even on unmarked property. Let me also note the difference between “hunting with permission only” and “hunting with WRITTEN permission only.” “Hunting with permission only” allows for any form of permission, written, verbal or over the phone, and requires the land owner’s signature on any ticket or formal complaint issued by the conservation officer. “Hunting with WRITTEN permission only” is satisfied only by permission in writing, and gives law enforcement personnel free rein to issue citations, and /or make arrests with no further authorization.

By the way, land owners, the fish and game dept. furnishes both the signs and permission slips, at no cost, for this type of posting. I’m sure we hunters have all seen the bright purple paint on fence posts and old tires along property lines. These purple markers along property boundaries also mean “hunting with WRITTEN permission only,” and corresponding compliance is required. The local conservation officer told me that trespassing violations are misdemeanors, so fines are determined and levied by the judge. A few years ago in McPherson County, the minimum was two hundred fifty dollars plus court costs of ninety-eight dollars, and could easily have run up to five hundred dollars depending on circumstances and the judge’s decision.

We hunt mostly deer and turkeys, and trap coyotes, raccoons and beavers. Lots of land owners, especially farmers, are willing to let respectful, responsible hunters help them control deer, turkey, predator and beaver populations on their land. In my assessment, there are very few reasons why hunting and trapping permission is denied. One is because the owner wants to reserve the privilege for themselves and their family. Another is because someone else has “beaten us to the punch.” There are also land owners who simply do not want game animals harvested. These are all legitimate reasons we hunters must respect. The explanation that makes me cringe is when a land owner denies hunting or trapping permission because of a bad experience with previous hunters or trappers. Trespassing, cut or broken-down fences, gates left open, muddy ruts in fields, indiscriminate shooting and other disrespectful actions toward the owner or his property; I’ve seen or experienced them all! Sadly, these actions by a few of our comrades adversely affect all hunters in the end.

Remember, NO SIGN of any kind is required to keep unwelcome hunters off your land, nor to have them prosecuted for trespassing! I was once denied permission to hunt deer during firearms season on a man’s property because years before he and his wife had dodged bullets whizzing through the trees as they attempted to cut firewood. Evidently the shooter had never before heard the sound a chainsaw makes…Continue to Explore Kansas Outdoors.

Steve Gilliland, Inman, can be contacted by email at [email protected].