It’s well documented that I am not a big fan of the flood of dystopian young adult novel series being made into movie trilogies/quadrilogies these days. It’s a shot-out genre with little or no innovation and it just won’t stop. The latest offender is “The Divergent Series: Insurgent,” the follow up to last year’s “Divergent.”
Take a quick second to think about every movie trope you’ve ever encountered. Got it? The “what appears to be real life is actually a dream,” the “let’s fight without our guns,” the “idiotic and overly-dramatic use of futuristic technology” and the list goes on and on. The punchline is: there all in here. While watching “Insurgent” I honestly wondered to myself if the movie was trying to set some type of trope record.
Granted, I am not the target audience – far from it. That said, the film, in and of itself, is bloated by everything from its intentionally one-dimensional characters, to its incredibly simplistic plot which is poorly disguised as depth, to the consistently terrible writing where every character has a whole pack of “deus ex machina” (a contrived plot device where an unexpected power or event saves a seemingly un-savable situation) get out of jail free cards in their pockets.
Perhaps most egregious is “Insurgent’s” fondness for administering mind-altering chemicals to its characters and never once using any type of disinfectant. Time and time again people are stuck with needles or shot with drug-injecting ball things and I was severely distracted by my genuine concern that everyone in this entire civilization was going to suffer from widespread infection and disease. Also, just a quick physics note, shooting a gumball-sized metal projectile at assault rifle velocity would probably take off heads, not gently put people to sleep.
The above paragraph is “Insurgent’s” greatest failure. The entire movie I was more concerned about the poor medicinal practices and the physics of the weapons than I was about the safety or success of the main characters. That’s no bueno.
We’re coming to what might become one of the most significant confrontations of recent Kansas history, when Gov. Sam Brownback inevitably signs into law the new K-12 block grant school finance bill—policy and appropriations all in one.
The bill? It’s just about what the governor called for in his State of the State address to the Kansas Legislature: Eliminating the current finance program for K-12 schools and handing out block grants for two years while the Legislature figures out a new plan for sending money to school districts.
But…there is a three-judge panel working at the direction of the Kansas Supreme Court which is assessing whether the state is providing “adequate” support—that’s money—for operation of the state’s elementary and secondary schools to make sure that our children get a good education.
And, that three-judge panel—whether it is called “activist” or supportive of that constitutional funding mandate—has put everyone on notice that it “may agree or elect to impose such temporary orders to protect the status quo and to assure the availability of relief, if any, that might be accorded should the court deem relief warranted.”
What? Basically it is the court telling the participants in the Gannon v. Kansas lawsuit over adequacy of funding for K-12 that it could step into that appropriations bill, or law whenever the governor signs it, with temporary court orders.
Because the bill specifically eliminates that “status quo” finance formula and doesn’t provide the amount of aid that we’re figuring the court wants, well, that sounds like the Legislature and the court panel are clearly at odds.
That panel could, essentially, shut down the K-12 block grant bill, freeze the money it proposes to spend and propel the Legislature back to work. That’s a bold threat from judges, but at some point, it makes sense not to let the state spend money that might be needed to satisfy the panel that the state is “adequately” funding schools.
Now, that’s just a three-judge panel, and if it goes to the end of the leash and prohibits the law from becoming effective, look for the issue to quickly wind up before the Kansas Supreme Court—a blockbuster of a scrap between the Legislature and the governor and the courts.
Oh, and did we mention that the current state budget that will be debated this week requires more taxes from someone or someplace to balance? And, that if the courts stop the school finance bill, there’s likely to be more taxes needed to end the upcoming two fiscal years with money in the bank?
And…it is probably worth remembering that though there are 97 Republicans in the House, the school bill was passed by just two votes (64-57) with nary a Democrat vote for it in either the House or the Senate, where it passed 25-14.
Everything coming together now? It’s the Legislature, and as soon as he signs it into law, the governor vs. Kansas Courts, or at least a three-judge panel that the Supreme Court may have to either support or abandon. Or, there’s of course the chance that the governor won’t sign the bill and it becomes law without his signature…not exactly a high testosterone way to deal with the issue by the governor.
So, where are we on school finance?
Will the bill become law? Will the three-judge panel figure a way to freeze the bill temporarily because it eliminates current law on school finance which is apparently constitutional, just not funded sufficiently? Will the high court step in on the issue? Will the Legislature look for direction, and to whom?
Lots of questions, not many answers, and this week, or maybe the week after—when the Legislature starts its “spring break” before the veto session—we’ll see where this is headed.
Stay tuned…
Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka,Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report. To learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.
John Richard Schrock is a professor at Emporia State University.
President Obama proposed making community college tuition free for all in his call to raise the rate of Americans with post-high school credentials to 60 percent. Our Kansas Governor would raise that goal even higher, including military service in his target number—but without free community college.
With associate and bachelor’s degrees now considered replacing the high school diploma as the new requirement for a good job, both politicians expect community colleges to play a major role. As a result, a flood of data has emerged on the real effects of a community college education.
A general rule is that students who attend selective elite liberal arts college have a graduation rate of about 75 percent over six years. Public universities graduate roughly 50 percent in that time. And community colleges generally average 25 percent succeeding in completing the associate’s degree with fewer moving onward to complete 4-year degrees.
However, Kansas is the top state in community college graduates going forward to complete a 4-year degree. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s annual report lists Kansas with the highest rate of 25.2 percent. Only five other states exceeded 20 percent.
While newspapers credited the Kansas Board of Regents recent mandate that freshman and sophomore courses transfer freely across the state system, the 59-page NSCRC tracked freshmen who entered college in fall 2008 and graduated by May 2014, well before most of the KBOR “seamless articulation” had been completed. Credit for Kansas students’ success most likely falls to the quality of teaching in Kansas K-12 schools.
And six years? Viewing program completion across a six-year time frame is important. Roughly 60 percent of college students change their major at least once. Since legislators, governors and presidents fail to realize the high rate that most students’ change majors, they throw hissy fits and propose penalties on universities that fail to graduate all students in four years.
A recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education broke down the nationwide average “student outcomes” for community college students. At the end of six years, 21.3 percent had completed a two-year degree. 5.6 percent had completed the 2-year degree and gone on to finish a 4-year degree. 9.4 percent left their community college program midway to complete a 4-year degree. Twenty percent were still enrolled after six years. And 43.6 percent had dropped out of community college.
The Chronicle also reported: “Students who get the bachelor’s degree have 42 percent higher earnings than those with only an associate degree….”
But any drive to increase the numbers of students in post-high school education is limited by the quality of the schools and the quality of the students.
In states such as Indiana, “community colleges” are branch campuses of either Purdue University of Indiana University. With co-numbered courses, the rigor of these branch campuses can be maintained through parent university oversight.
In Kansas, community colleges are not under the jurisdiction of parent universities and course quality varies dramatically. Some Kansas community colleges have quality faculty and rigorous programs. But some deliver weak courses taught by teachers with half the content preparation of high school teachers—a loophole the Kansas Board of Regents has failed to plug since 2005.
Students also vary in academic ability, work ethic, and vocational interests. The high dropout rate at community colleges includes some students who are simply not “community college-able.”
Other students want to be auto mechanics, plumbers, or welders but have been coerced by high schools to attend a university rather than a tech school or community college. And there are others who are “able” but cannot afford to attend. The student who lives at home and is only on a community college campus for classes is really attending High School Part 2. And working 20-to-40 hours a week interferes with an education that should be a full time job.
Even if we funded free community college for all, these data indicate that the numbers who might succeed in graduating with a 2-years associate’s or 4-year bachelor’s degree will not begin to approach the President’s and Governor’s goals—unless we water down the coursework to high school levels.
OK, I’ve got to admit I’ve been looking forward to spring turkey season, but the feeling barely rated a tingle and was certainly nothing close to an itch yet.
The other night driving home from Hutchinson, I took a back road I knew in the past was home to a nice group of turkeys each spring and a big group each winter. Sure enough there they were, strung out over a couple hundred yards of wheat field.
There were easily a hundred birds, and a few toms were polishing up their moves and beginning to form their harems. I scratched all the way home, so now I’m officially itchin’ for spring turkey season to start. This morning I stood in the parking lot at my job noticing the sparse tint of frost on the roof tops, feeling the slight nip in the air, and hearing the robins twittering, all reminding me of early morning turkey hunts.
I’m not a real seasoned turkey hunter, but I have learned a thing or two, mostly by mistake, about the pursuit of Kansas gobblers. A tried-and-true way of putting yourself on turkeys at first light is to be set up to call them as they leave the roost in the morning. You need to be close, but not too close and you need to be able to get there without being seen or heard by the still-roosted birds.
More than once I’ve set up in the morning where I saw birds late the night before and assumed I knew where they roosted, only to be scared spitless the next morning when a big tom gobbled much too near to me in the dark. My error was in not knowing for certain where they roosted and assuming I could come close enough. So if calling birds as they leave the roost in the morning is your game, either stick around long enough the night before or come back after dark and do some coyote howls or owl hoots to know for sure where they are.
Another thing I’ve learned is not to give up too easily on birds you spook. Once spooked, you will probably not get a shot at those birds anymore that day where you happen to spook them, but quietly leave and get set up somewhere ahead of them and the game is still on. A few years ago I built a blind out of brush the landowner had cut at the end of a field a couple hundred yards from where I knew a small group of turkeys was roosting. What I hadn’t planned for was the couple lone jakes roosting by themselves just a short distance from my blind.
After they had called my bluff, and the group I knew about had shunned me too, I set up again along a creek just around the corner of the same wooded pasture and started calling. The two jakes that had busted me came running enthusiastically and probably would have run over me had I not shot the first one.
Despite what the pros might say, turkey calling does not have to be precise and flawless either. Yes it’s good to know enough that your calls are not screaming bad things about a gobbler’s mother, but in my opinion it’s much more important to be in the right spot and to be well camouflaged, quiet and still.
Spring turkey season in Kansas runs from April 15 through the end of May for shotgun and archery; from April 1-14 for youth/disabled hunters and from April 6-14 for archery only; that’s a long time. In my mind there is no excuse not to buy a spring turkey permit for $22.50 and hit the woods. If you’re new to turkey hunting, attend a seminar or find an experienced hunter to take you along and experience that sickness known as spring wild turkey hunting as you Explore Kansas Outdoors!
Steve Gilliland, Inman, can be contacted by email at [email protected].
When America entered World War II in 1941, we faced an enemy that had banned and burned over 100 million books and caused fearful citizens to hide or destroy many more.
Marleah Augustine is Adult Department Librarian at the Hays Public Library.
Outraged librarians launched a campaign to send free books to American troops and gathered 20 million hardcover donations. In 1943, the War Department and the publishing industry stepped in with an extraordinary program: 120 million small, lightweight paperbacks, for troops to carry in their pockets and their rucksacks, in every theater of war.
This is an ideal book for World War II historians as well as librarians, or anyone who wants to read about something positive that happened during those difficult years.
I’d never heard of the Armed Services Editions, but how they came to be and what they did for the soldiers overseas was fascinating. It made me, as a librarian, consider what more could be done during current times to create something similar. I was also inspired by the fact that veterans credited the ASEs with their success in college after returning from the war. Simply by having these books available (and in need of distraction), men who had never read a book through became voracious readers.
The book itself was repetitive in parts, but was generally well-written and intriguing. A few days after finishing this book, I watched a movie set during WWII, and I kept watching to see if ASEs would make an appearance. I think this epic and worthwhile task needs more attention, and Manning’s book is a start.
109th Dist. State Rep. Troy Waymaster, R-Bunker Hill
March 20, 2015 Troy L. Waymaster, State Representative, Kansas House district, 109
Appropriations “Mega” Bill
On Monday, March 16, the Kansas Senate concurred with the block grant funding for K-12 education, 25-14, that the Kansas House passed on Friday, March 13, 64-57. After their concurrence, that bill now will go to Governor Brownback’s desk for his signature.
Even though I voted “No” on the block grant funding measure due to uncertainty on the impact it could possibly have on rural schools during and after the block grant period, with its passage it does address over fifty percent of the state of Kansas’ budgets for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017.
On Tuesday, March 17, the House Appropriations committee began working on the adjusted budget for fiscal year 2015 and the proposed budgets for 2016 and 2017. Since this budget contains the spending measures for the state of Kansas for the next coming years, it is often referred to as the “Mega” Appropriations Bill.
One of the first measures that we adopted into the “Mega” Bill was the insertion of funding for the Judicial Branch of approximately $6.6 million in 2016 and $11 million in 2017. The additional funds were approved by the General Government Budget committee and then the full House Appropriations Committee when I reported this budget to them. While presenting their budget to the General Government Budget Committee, the Judicial Branch provided testimony that in order to have sustained funding, as in 2015; this branch of government would need $11 million in 2016 and $17 million in 2017.
Through many meetings and deliberations, I asked the branch for the necessary amount of funding that they needed above the Governor’s recommendation to prevent the layoffs and furloughs, which they claimed would happen without the additional funds. The amount that was submitted to the Appropriation Committee is the compromised amount needed for this third branch of government to operate in 2016 and 2017.
Other budgets we amended while working the “Mega” Bill affected many important programs and institutions throughout the state.
Some of those are the reinstatement of funds for the Parents as Teachers Program, allowing Kansas State University to have bond authority for the purpose of renovating Seaton Hall on the university’s campus, and potentially contracting with an outside auditor to evaluate the state of Kansas’ agencies, which would specifically identify redundancies and make the state more fiscally efficient.
The total amount of state spending for fiscal year 2016 is estimated at $6.2 billion.
Now that we have a tentative budget, the tax committee will meet to generate a tax plan to address the revenue side of the balance sheet and to ensure that we will balance the budget by the end of session.
Judicial Selection
There has been much discussion about changing the selection process for the Supreme Court since I was sworn in in 2013. Governor Brownback introduced the notion in his State of the State speech in 2013 and again in 2015. Currently this legislative session, we have two resolutions that would address the selection of the Supreme Court.
The altering of the selection process is in the form of a resolution and not a bill due to changing the Kansas Constitution, which requires a two-thirds approval vote in the House followed by a majority vote by the populous of Kansas.
There are currently two versions awaiting debate on the House floor regarding judicial selection.
One calls for having partisan elections for the Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals judges. The other is allowing the Governor to appoint Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals judges. The nominations would be subject to confirmation by the Kansas Senate. Both would abolish the current Supreme Court nominating commission. Being a political scientist, I prefer the latter version which is similar to the model on a Federal level.
Constitutional Carry Bill
There has been much discussion this session on Senate Bill 45, also referred to as the “Constitutional Carry” Bill. SB 45 would amend current law regarding firearms and adds language allowing the concealed carry of a firearm without needing a concealed carry license issued by the state of Kansas, as long as the individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law.
The bill specifies that the carrying of a concealed handgun cannot be prohibited in any building unless the building was posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Attorney General. Concealed carry licenses would still be issued by the state, but the availability of those licenses could not be construed to prohibit the carrying of handguns without a license, whether carried openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded.
Related to concealed carry licenses, the bill also would allow the Attorney General to create a list of concealed carry handgun licenses or permits from other jurisdictions that have training requirements greater than or equal to the Kansas requirements. This list could be used by the Attorney General when reviewing concealed carry license applications and making a determination about whether an individual has completed an approved handgun safety and training course required for issuance of a concealed carry license.
The bill amends the definition of “criminal carrying of a weapon” clarifying that it is not legal for anyone under 21 years of age to conceal carry any pistol, revolver, or other firearm unless this individual is on his own land, home or place of business.
This bill passed out of the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 17.
Visitors and Contact Information
As we approach what is legislatively called “Drop Dead Date” of April 3, there are many other bills that we will have the opportunity to debate and vote on.
The bills that we have remaining vary in topics.
There are currently two other bills regarding firearm possession, eight bills regarding alcohol, including the Uncork Kansas legislation, and there are numerous tax bills encompassing all taxable items.
One of the tax proposals that had a hearing this week had to do with possibly increasing the state sales tax back to 6.3%, which it was until we reduced it in 2013. The House Tax committee conducted hearings on that proposal on March 17, and there is a possibility that there may be momentum to increase the sales tax rate from the current 6.15% to 6.3% in order to address the state budgetary shortfall.
It is an honor to serve the 109th Kansas House District and the state of Kansas. Do not hesitate to contact me with your thoughts, concerns and questions. I appreciate hearing from the residents of the 109th House District and others from the state of Kansas.
Troy L. Waymaster,
State Representative
109th Kansas House
300 SW 10th
Topeka, KS 66612
There are many books written about Barack Hussein Obama. In this column, I can only scratch the surface about our president’s extraordinary background.
The fact that Obama’s mother and grandparents came from Kansas before moving to Hawaii may be one of only a few ordinary things about his upbringing.
It appears to me that our president of today has a unique background unlike any president in American history. Most of the information in this letter was presented to the public by alternative media back in 2007, however, mainstream media didn’t seem to be the least bit interested.
While in Hawaii his mother met then married a Kenyan Muslim. Obama’s father, from the country of Kenya, turned out to be an alcoholic, supposedly married at the same time to another woman, eventually divorcing Obama’s mother, and unfortunately lost his life in a car accident due to his alcoholism. Obama to this day seems to have an obsession about his father.
Obama’s mother was a free spirit, giving up her Christian faith, and a second time married another Muslim following her divorce to Obama’s father. While living in Indonesia, Obama’s stepfather had his stepson accompany him often to a mosque for prayer. Obama remarked that Muslim prayer “is one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.” Some would argue his refusal to name terrorists as Islamic terrorists comes from his early exposure to the Islamic faith.
All presidents had a unique background, but Obama’s appears to be extraordinarily unique. Have we ever had a president where polls show there are many who question whether or not he is Christian or his love of America?
When his mother divorced for the second time, Obama moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. During that time, he was tutored by Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying communist on the FBI’s radar screen. Some would argue much of his socialistic thinking of today came from Davis.
In Obama’s book “Dreams of My Father,” he admits to doing drugs throughout high school and pretty much out of it during that time. Would any other president in our history be president following such an admission? I wonder.
Following high school, Obama was able to get into several distinguished universities. And, it is his higher education career that is unique also, unlike other presidents. He has spent millions in attorney fees keeping his college records under wraps. We don’t know his grades or how he even gained admission to some of the schools.
No other president’s birth certificate has become so controversial, raising the question of Obama’s place of birth and right to be U.S. president.
No other president went to a church regularly where the church’s pastor (Jeremiah Wright) was clearly anti-American and said “God damn America” and the “chickens came home to roost” when 911 occurred. Obama went to that church for 20 years, and its pastor married Michelle and Obama.
Our president’s political campaign was jump-started at the home of Bill Ayers, a known American terrorist who today says he and his wife didn’t bomb enough buildings. Ayers and his wife are university professors.
A litany of socialist groups supported Obama’s run for the presidency. Did Obama’s early history have lots to do with his campaign of “transforming America,” particularly in terms of redistribution of wealth?
Would any other American pres be so very silent as thousands of Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East and at the same time protecting Muslims from Islamic terrorists who he simply calls extremists? Or would any other claim we are no longer a Christian nation? Or that Christians a thousand years ago killed under the name of God also?
Would any other pres engage in a secret deal with Islamic Iran, completely bypassing Congress, which gives Iran the right to develop a nuclear bomb?
Even though our president was never “down for the struggle,” media didn’t seem to care about anything but Obama being our first black president and, of course, that too makes him like none other to occupy the Oval Office.
Whatever your faith or sexual orientation, what happened in Utah on March 12 should make you proud to be an American.
That’s the day Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law groundbreaking legislation — Senate Bill 296 — protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment while also providing exemptions for religious institutions and protections for religious speech.
Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute.
The quintessential American moment came at a press conference earlier in the month when Utah legislators, LGBT activists and — most importantly — leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — stood together to announce support for the common ground agreement that is now state law.
A breakthrough of this magnitude required months of difficult and complex negotiations. Despite deep political and religious divisions, people of goodwill built bridges of trust and found a way forward based on what leaders of the Mormon Church called the principle of “fairness for everyone.”
In this legislation, everyone means everyone: Transgender people are protected, an issue that has blocked agreement in other states.
This is a proud moment for many Utahans who clearly hope that their small, often misunderstood state will be a model for other areas of the country.
One of the bill’s lead sponsors, Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, spoke for many when he said at the press conference: “Like in Utah’s history, when the final, golden spike was driven in Utah, uniting the west and east coasts of the United States, we hope today’s announcement will drive a spike in the false idea that LGBT rights are in conflict with religious freedom.”
The precise language of the Utah’s law, of course, is not a one-size-fits-all solution readily transferable to other states. Existing civil rights laws and religious freedom exemptions vary from state to state, so any recipe for compromise in other places will require a somewhat different mix of protections and exemptions.
Moreover, significant differences remain over questions concerning religious exemptions and same-sex marriage (now legal in Utah after a federal court ruling).
After passing SB 296, the legislature enacted SB 297 with mostly non-controversial religious exemptions for clergy and religious organizations similar to those found in other states.
More contentious, however, is a provision in SB 297 guaranteeing same-sex couples access to marriage, but allowing local clerks to opt out of officiating at same-sex weddings for religious reasons as long someone else is available to solemnize the marriage. Gov. Herbert is expected to sign the bill.
Despite these caveats and remaining disagreements, the spirit of the Utah agreement — the willingness to seek a balance between nondiscrimination and religious freedom acceptable to people on all sides — can, and should be replicated elsewhere.
Unfortunately, lawmakers in Alabama, Georgia and other states are going in the opposite direction, rushing to pass “religious liberty” bills (in anticipation of a Supreme Court decision expected to favor same-sex marriage) without any counterweight proposals to protect LGBT people from discrimination.
This one-sided, shortsighted strategy pits religious liberty against equality — and will end by diminishing both.
By enacting SB 296, Utah got it right.
No one should be discriminated against in the workplace or denied housing because of sexual orientation. At the same time, religious institutions should be protected to practice their faith as long as that practice does not interfere with the rights of others.
By coming together to seek fairness for all while simultaneously respecting differences that are abiding and deep, Utah’s leaders — civil and religious — have demonstrated that when we uphold our guiding principles of freedom and equality, America still works.
Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Washington-based Newseum Institute. [email protected]
Governor Fred Hall was the 33rd Governor of Kansas, from 1953-57. Governor Hall provided the instigation for the judicial appointment system currently under threat from Governor Brownback and a judicially annoyed state legislature. What Hall did was something that several governors had done before him, just not as flamboyantly. They, like Governor Hall, had used the governor’s judicial appointment powers to serve their political interests.
Dr. Mark Peterson teaches political science at the college level in Topeka.
In Hall’s case, Chief Justice William Smith of the Kansas Supreme Court, an ally of Hall’s, resigned his seat. Hall saved his own voter-rejected skin by resigning which caused Lieutenant Governor John McQuish to become governor. Governor McQuish then appointed the now former Governor Hall to become the new Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice. It was called, depending on who you read, the “triple jump” or the “triple shift.” These events persuaded the legislature and the people of Kansas that the judicial appointment system had to be de-politicized.
In 1958, the people of Kansas went to the polls to approve our current judicial appointment system. It’s called the “Modified Missouri Plan.” It uses a commission of nine people. Four are regionally peer-selected lawyers; four are citizens chosen by the governor – one from each congressional district; and the last member and chairperson is another lawyer picked by members of the Kansas Bar Association.
The governor’s influence in the process is strong, both in terms of choosing nearly half the commission members, and having final say in the selection of the new appointee from the commission’s list of three nominees. At the same time purely partisan politics is reduced, and the likelihood of pure cronyism largely eliminated.
Why the history lesson?
With Governor Brownback’s urging, the state legislature is considering Concurrent Resolutions (HCR 5004 and 5005) to do away with this less political process in favor of something close to the bad old days. One resolution proposes the governor alone nominate a justice for senatorial confirmation. The other creates a selection commission. The governor, the house speaker and the senate president each get to choose three members who would replace the existing commission and submit their choice to the governor who would in turn make the final selection – no Kansas Bar Association involvement in either case.
There’s also HCR 5003 which if ratified by the voters, would permit the recall of judges, just in case the public gets really upset with a judge in between constitutionally mandated retention elections. The proposed changes significantly increase the partisanship and politics of our appellate courts. Is this a good thing for Kansas, or any state for that matter?
Advocates declare these approaches more democratic and therefore more constitutionally defensible. What is the role of the courts in our system of separated powers and checks and balances? The courts are the least popularly controlled branch of government for a reason. Their job is to hear the complaints of citizens, restrain the power of government, and defend the rights of the accused and the aggrieved. In those capacities our interests are better served by institutions less susceptible to the volatile public, the anger of thwarted governors, and the spite of legislators irritated by judges.
Kansas voters should be reminded, vividly, that 60 years ago they had politically controlled courts. Fred Hall was the last in an inglorious line of elected officials who used the courts to suit their political needs. Kansans had the wisdom to fix the system in 1958. Now, as the legislature has “run the table” to eliminate the existing school finance formula; replaced it with block grants; and challenged the state’s courts on the constitutional question of school funding adequacy, there’s little to suggest that political behavior has undergone a virtuous transformation in the nearly six decades since.
Dr. Mark Peterson teaches political science at the college level in Topeka.
By RON WILSON Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development
The fire is raging through the building as the firefighters hurry to the scene. They need to identify the location of the fire and determine the safest and most efficient tactics for dealing with it. If only they had a quick, practical way to get an aerial view of the building…that is the thought process which led a Kansas entrepreneur to create an innovative new business using unmanned aerial systems to enhance public safety.
Ron Wilson is director of the Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development at Kansas State University.
John Martens is the founder of NMotion UAS, the company which is doing pioneering work with unmanned aerial systems and technologies. John grew up at Hesston and went to K-State. He became a firefighter in Manhattan and then moved back to get closer to family.
John still works as a firefighter. His wife is also from Hesston and teaches financial planning at K-State-Salina. On the side, John started working in digital media, including video production. In order to get aerial views, he began using unmanned aerial vehicles – sometimes referred to as drones – for filming video.
Then commercial uses of these drones were blocked by the FAA as the agency developed drone regulations. John was frustrated, but as he looked into the matter, he found that the use of drones for public safety purposes was still permitted through an authorization process. As a firefighter, he immediately recognized the benefit of using unmanned aerial systems to help at a fire scene or other emergency by using a piece of remote-controlled equipment for recon instead of a human.
John created a business called NMotion UAS, which produces unmanned aerial systems for first responders and other public safety agencies. These are easy-to-launch unmanned vehicles with cameras or sensors that public safety officials can use to help respond to an emergency situation.
There are numerous applications of these systems for public safety, such as for firefighters, search and rescue operations, law enforcement, emergency management, hazmat situations, or remote sensing. The systems can provide emergency personnel a real-time aerial view and even thermal imaging of a disaster scene such as a fire or flood.
Unlike manned systems, the unmanned robots can fly very close to a hazardous location without harm. Information can be instantly transmitted back to firefighters, law enforcement, or rescuers to assist with their operations on-scene.
As the company motto says, this allows public safety officials to “See more. Risk less, and save lives.”
The flying cameras themselves are small, remotely-guided flying devices. The real benefit of these systems comes from the perspective and data which these planes can provide.
“We offer ready-to-fly turnkey systems to public safety officials and first responders,” John said. “Our systems allow us to revolutionize the dull, dirty, dangerous tasks that responders face regularly.”
John knows those tasks firsthand. “I’ve been a firefighter for seven years,” he said. “It’s a rewarding and challenging job. Our systems are like a force multiplier. “They enable emergency responders to better calculate risk and mitigate the emergency more efficiently.”
John started building this equipment in his basement. The company’s main office continues in John’s hometown of Hesston, population 3,531 people. Now, that’s rural.
NMotion UAS was selected by the Center for Entrepreneurship in the K-State College of Business as one of ten up-and-coming businesses to be part of the inaugural class of its Launch A Business program, or L-A-B, in 2014.
“It was a great opportunity,” John said. “It was perfect for what we needed and what many startup companies need.” Applicants are now being sought for 2015. More information can be found at www.k-state.edu/lab.
John Martens has since been featured in UAS Magazine and selected for the prestigious Pipeline Entrepreneurship Program. More information on his business can be found at www.nmotionuas.com.
The fire is raging through the building as firefighters arrive to assess the situation. If only they had a way to get a quick, aerial perspective on the emergency… and now they do. We commend John Martens of NMotion UAS for making a difference with innovative use of technology for public safety. They can’t fight fire with fire, but maybe they can “fight fire with a flyer.”
The smell and sight of spring burning on the Flint Hills evoked this childhood memory.
It started with a spark on a rail that jumped into the dry, spring prairie and ignited. Within seconds the southerly wind whipped the fire across the pasture toward our small, rural school.
The culprit was an old black steam engine from the Union Pacific railway that lurched and pulled boxcars filled with wheat across the flat short-grass prairie. It was one of those giant puffing behemoths complete with pistons and huge driving wheels.
The year was 1959. The place – Seguin, Kan., population 50 counting three dogs and two cats.
I attended grade school in that two-room structure and while I enjoyed class as much as any of my schoolmates, these prairie fires were legendary. Such an event provided us the opportunity to miss class, abandon our schoolhouse and watch the approaching fire under God’s grandest cathedral – the big-sky country of northwestern Kansas.
Inside our school, Sister Helena Marie lined us up to march onto the road and away from the fire. Outside, we could hear the crackling fire as it licked up the tinderbox-dry grass. The flames raced along the ground a good foot tall. The smoke trailed into the blue sky, and looked like it might block out the sun.
As the hypnotic orange flames raced toward school, we all talked about how close the fire might come, would it burn our school down and where would we go then?
For our dads, fighting these fires was something completely different. Such fires threatened to burn a neighbor’s home to the ground, destroy a farmstead or even take a life.
Our small rural community did not have a fire department, fire truck or any other fire fighting equipment. When prairie fires occurred, my dad and his farmer neighbors jumped off their tractors and into their pickups and headed for the smoke. One of them always had a water tank in the back; others brought gunny sacks that they soaked with water. Then they ran out onto the prairie to fight the fire.
This wasn’t the first time dad and his farmer neighbors wielded their makeshift fighting tools. Steam engines, dry buffalo grass and strong winds often provided the possibility of such prairie fires. These western Kansas farmers had plenty of experience fighting the flames.
None of my friends or I had a watch at the time, but I figure it took our dads close to an hour to finally beat every last flame into submission.
As they walked back to their pickups, their gait was slow. Soot covered their faces, hands and clothing. They all wore smiles.
They’d stopped the fire. This battle went to the farmers.
We all cheered and like newborn spring calves, threatened to run to our parents. Sister Helena Marie would not hear of it.
“Back into the school house,” she ordered.
As I recall this happened about midafternoon and until the brass school bell rang dismissing us for the day, I spent the rest of that day fighting the fire in my mind. Most of my classmates did the same.
After we bounded down the steps and hit the ground outside the school, Albert Rall, my brother, Steve, and I ran to the edge of the burned prairie southwest of the building.
Here we surveyed the burned pasture stretching nearly a half-mile in front of us. As we walked our shoes turned black as burnt grass crunched under our feet. A couple of the posts that supported the barbed wire fence bordering the school property were charred and cracked.
Our nostrils filled with the smoky particles covering the blackened landscape. The three of us walked back toward the schoolhouse. Once we came to the edge of the fire burn, we all three stepped off the distance from there to school.
The distance was approximately 40 yards or about 55 steps for an 11-year-old. The fire had come so close this time. If our dads had arrived a few minutes later, our school might have burnt to the ground.
We all breathed a sigh of relief. We were thankful, but no one said a word.
Laughing, we raced around the school and bolted back up the stairs to our desks. Once seated, each of us took out our books and started writing inside the front covers, “In case of fire, throw this in.” That was directly under the already written words, “In God we trust. In school we rust.”
John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas.
Almost everyone has personal belongings such as wedding photographs, a baseball glove, holiday ornaments, a beloved doll or a yellow pie plate that contain meaning for them and for other members of their family. These heirlooms and personal possessions are known as non-titled property because they do not have a legal title which establishes rules of ownership.
When doing estate planning, families too often talk about the house or the investments but they may forget to discuss household goods and personal possessions. Research done at the University of Minnesota with families and attorneys revealed it is often the non-titled property that creates the greatest challenges for families when estates are divided — not the property or the money.
An Extension program called “Who Gets Grandma’s Yellow Pie Plate” will be offered twice this month in Ellis County to help families explore the opportunities and challenges of dealing with personal belongings. The first presentation will be Monday, March 23 at noon at the Extension Office meeting room, 601 Main Street in Hays. Contact the Ellis County Extension Office, 785-628-9430 to pre-register.
The program will be repeated on Tuesday, March 24 at 7:00 pm at the Ellis Public Library Community Room in Ellis. Register for this session at the Ellis Recreation Commission, 785-726-3718. Linda Beech, County Extension Agent, will be the speaker for both sessions.
Planning to pass on belongings that have special meaning, like grandma’s yellow pie plate, can be a challenge or a celebration of family memories. The following tips will help you make decisions that are right for your family.
1. Recognize that decisions about personal belongings are often more challenging than decisions about titled property. Assuming such decisions are unimportant or trivial can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts.
2. Recognize that inheritance decisions can have powerful consequences — emotional as well as economic. Decisions about personal property involve dealing with emotional and potential financial value connected to objects accumulated over a lifetime and across generations of family members.
3. Plan ahead. When decisions are made prior to death, the decisions can reflect the owner’s wishes, and special memories and stories may be shared. Planning ahead versus waiting until a crisis or death offers more choices and a chance for thoughtful communication.
4. Consider how to deal with conflicts before they arise. Issues of power and control do not disappear in inheritance decisions. Unresolved conflicts among parents, adult children, siblings, and others are often at the heart of what goes wrong with inheritance decisions. Listen for feelings and emotions, watch for blaming, and determine if you can agree to disagree if conflicts arise.
5. Remember that different perceptions of what’s “fair” are normal and should be expected. Those involved need to uncover the unwritten rules and assumptions about fairness that exist among family members.
6. Consider all options. Being fair does not always mean being equal. In fact, dividing personal items equally is sometimes impossible.
7. Ask others for input. Individuals who have input and agree on how decisions are made are more likely to be satisfied with the outcomes of those decisions.
8. Discuss what those involved want to accomplish. This will help reduce mistaken assumptions, misunderstood intentions, and makes choosing distribution options easier.
9. Ask others to identify items that have special meaning to them. This will help minimize inaccurate assumptions about who should get what. Not everyone will find the same items meaningful.
10. Put wishes in writing. By creating a separate listing mentioned in a will, for example, the property owner will reduce the dilemmas and decisions for estate executors and surviving family members.
Plan to attend one of the Extension programs on “Who Gets Grandma’s Yellow Pie Plate” on March 23 in Hays and March 24 in Ellis to learn more.
Linda K. Beech is Ellis County Extension Agent and Family and Consumer Sciences.
When George Washington left office, he issued a “Farewell Address” in which he warned our young nation to avoid foreign entanglements. Now I’m leaving office, and I have a farewell warning for the Hays City Commission.
As you read my opening words, you may have immediately said to yourself, “I knew George Washington, and you, Kent, are no George Washington.”
Of course that’s true. Nevertheless, on a more modest note, I offer this advice: City and county governments should say no to almost every request for handouts to private business, whether in the form of CIDs, IRBs, tax increment financing or whatever the latest scheme might be to extort money from the common people and give it to rich people.
Such schemes have always existed, but until recent decades, they were far more common at the federal level. They began to trickle into state government in the pre-World War II South, and now they have become a flood throughout the nation. Welfare for business people has become status quo — and has even taken on the aura of respectability.
This makes no sense. There are multiple arguments against it, which can be found throughout research literature. Example: Tax abatements to lure businesses to a community tend to prop up marginal-to-worse businesses that inevitably fail. Example: Profitable businesses simply move on to the next community when the abatements end. Example: The cost of providing incentives for businesses are paid mostly by those least able to afford the higher taxes (note: government has no money except what it takes from citizens in fees and taxes).
Here’s the most important reason. CIDs, IRBs, tax increment financing and so forth short-circuit the free market system. They reward inefficient business and punish efficient business. If you give $3 million to The Mall, you surely do help The Mall, but you also hurt The Mall’s competitors. A tenant that would have opted for a better location — helping an efficient builder or an efficient landlord — now may stay at the improved Mall. So, the Mall is helped, but better-run businesses suffer and the overall economy of Hays is harmed. Government is not qualified to meddle in the private economy. Businesses should be left to succeed or fail on their own. When inefficient businesses fail, efficient businesses replace them, and the economy grows stronger.
According to a survey of research literature conducted at the University of Kansas in 2001, “Many economists have been prompted to question why municipalities continue to offer abatements indiscriminately when they have been shown to be largely ineffective and resource wasting.”
More simply, you might ask why state lawmakers and local elected officials continue to give away your money for no good reason.
Another research paper, Wolman (1988), offers three likely answers: 1. “decision-makers may be unaware of the literature regarding the ineffectiveness of abatements;” 2. “even if the decision-maker knows abatements are ineffective development tools, he or she may feel the need to offer them anyway because everyone else is doing it;” and 3. “abatement policy may be implemented to serve as a signal to potential businesses that local government is committed to economic growth.”
For whatever reason, the various giveaways are increasing, not decreasing. At first they were used almost exclusively to lure new businesses to town, but now everyone feels entitled to a government handout. The theory goes that by building a new business or expanding an existing business, I will create jobs and increase tax revenue, so you owe it to me. Of course that ignores the fundamental reality of the relationship between businesses and the community they call home. The community provides the workforce and the infrastructure and the customers for a business, which is why the business wants to build or expand in that community. In turn, the business creates jobs and pays its taxes and earns a profit for its owner. It is a symbiotic relationship, and there is no rationale for why the community should pay tribute to the business for doing what it exists to do.
Furthermore, business owners often insist they need the handout to make the business plan viable. “If you don’t give us the money, we cannot build or expand,” they say. This is no doubt true in some instances, but there is no way to confirm it. Short of hiring an auditor to thoroughly examine their books, which is not possible for proprietary reasons, city officials have only the word of the business owner. And even then there is no proof the owner could not have found additional investors or bank loans to boost his financial portfolio. There are documented cases, including one in Hays, in which a business stated it could not build without the handout even though construction had already begun. It is a poor city policy that gives away the taxpayers’ money with no possible way to prove the recipient needs the money.
None of this applies to public parks or streets or fire stations or public convention centers, by the way. There may be other reasons why a specific public project is not needed, but it is perfectly appropriate to fund needed public projects with tax money. That is a proper role of government.
I predict a prosperous future for Hays, but state and federal funds are drying up. With dwindling resources, now more than ever we need local officials who take the trouble to educate themselves on the folly of tax giveaways and then have the fortitude to vote no.
We need leaders who give more than lip service to the free-market system, who actually believe in capitalism and act accordingly.
