The Hutchinson News, Feb. 1
Sen. Roberts votes in predictable party-line fashion
Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran both said their offices had experienced an unusually high call volume in the week leading up to the very public, and quite contentious, vote on President Trump’s nomination for Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos.
And even though the majority of those messages on social media encouraged the senators to vote down the nomination - citing chiefly her lack of experience and understanding of public education - Sen. Roberts, who serves on the nomination committee, voted along party lines to advance DeVos’ nomination.
During campaigns, and when it suits them, Kansas congressmen often talk about the need to have people who represent the will of the people. Strong leaders who are willing to stand up to the Washington elite to make sure that the voice of Kansans is heard, and their demands carried out.
That, however, is a truth that only exists in the public statements of Kansas’ elected representatives in Washington. In reality, the Kansas delegation largely serves as a group of reliable lackeys who will fall in line with the party on almost every issue.
Even faced with a clear message of opposition to DeVos’ nomination, and at best dubious qualifications for the post, Roberts fell in line with his party, and with the president, ignored the message Kansans had sent him and voted to move her one step closer to heading the agency tasked with education policy in the United States.
President Trump was largely elected on the idea that Washington needed to be remade and retooled to be more responsive to the people it serves. Yet the biggest problem in Washington is that the party trumps people at every turn. That was shown again this week with Roberts’ vote on DeVos. Such party-line votes, without question and without pause, so there is very little, if any, dissent in this group of lawmakers, and very little effort to honor their role as independent representatives of the people of Kansas.
_____
The Lawrence Journal-World, Feb. 6
Because fees to access open records should be standard and affordable, Senate Bill 86 should be approved.
In an ideal world, public servants paid to serve the public would give the public free and open access to the public records that belong to the public.
Here in the real world - and by real world, we mean Kansas - existing law gives government officials broad discretion to set and charge fees for access to open records. That creates an environment where government workers can use fees as an effective deterrent to granting access to records.
Open records aren’t open if members of the public can’t afford access to them.
Open government advocates have tried to address the issue during the past three legislative sessions. Last year, a bill was approved in the Senate but the House never acted.
Advocates are back this year with Senate Bill 86, which would tighten Kansas Open Records Act language to establish clear and reasonable limits on charges for public records, while eliminating the laundry list of exceptions that allow for arbitrary charges.
Specifically, Senate Bill 86 would:
- Establish 25 cents per page as the maximum charge for standard 8.5-by-11-inch copies of public records.
- Limit all other costs to no more than the actual cost to the public agency to provide the records.
- And require agencies that charge staff time to do so at the lowest hourly rate of the staff member qualified to provide the records.
Contrast that with current law, which allows for charges for copies, computer services, facilities usage and staff time, including staff time for the supervisor overseeing the staff member actually producing the open records.
The law makes exceptions for the legislative, judicial and executive branches of state government and gives agency heads the leeway to set whatever fees they feel appropriate for their individual agencies. The only recourse for records requestors who think the fees are unreasonable is to appeal the charges to the secretary of administration.
That simply shouldn’t be. Fees for public records should be standard, affordable and subject to limits that give the benefit of the doubt to record seekers instead of the record keepers.
Senate Bill 86 does just that and should be approved.
_____
The Manhattan Mercury, Feb. 5
Require conviction for asset forfeiture
Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman Blaine Finch last week referred to the Kansas Judicial Council a handful of bills dealing with the civil forfeiture of property of criminal suspects. He indicated that he doesn’t expect the panel to return a proposal for legislative action this year.
That’s good. Advisory committee members will have plenty to consider.
Provisions in Kansas law, as well as federal law and the laws of many other states, have long allowed law enforcement agencies to seize assets from individuals suspected of various crimes, often drug crimes. Vehicles and cash are among items commonly seized, but anything used in the commission of a crime - or that police contend has been used in a crime - can be seized.
The seizures can become permanent after civil court hearings. In civil asset forfeiture cases, if law enforcement agencies can show probable cause that certain property was used in a crime, the burden falls to the defendant, who may not even have been convicted or arrested, to prove otherwise. Judges can transfer ownership of seized assets to the agencies, which can turn around and sell the forfeited assets.
Individuals trying to hold on to their property must hire attorneys to argue their cases, and defendants who have something to hide risk having evidence being acquired against them in civil cases that could be used in subsequent criminal cases.
We have no sympathy for convicted criminals who’ve lost a lot more than their shirts. But seizing personal property before individuals are convicted is another thing. Until someone in this state or country is convicted of a crime, his or her property ought to be beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies, local, state or national.
We don’t doubt that seized assets can help law enforcement agencies protect and serve the public, perhaps by beefing up drug enforcement or helping to pay officers’ salaries. Law enforcement lobbyist Ed Klump told the Lawrence Journal World a year ago that asset seizures are important for police operations. “If that money is not there. we either discontinue the things we are funding out of criminal money, or we have to fund them out of taxpayer money.”
That’s a difficult dilemma. It’s one that has on occasion led some agencies to focus more on asset seizures than on convictions.
Even if that temptation were universally resisted, the law should be changed. Probable cause that one’s property was used in commission of a crime is too low a threshold for government seizure. Absent a conviction, that property should be beyond government reach.
____
The Salina Journal, Feb. 6
Time to talk about Medicaid
It’s good that a bill to expand Medicaid in Kansas has been introduced in the Legislature. It’s a debate that lawmakers need to have even with the looming threat that Congress will pull the plug on “Obamacare.”
Rep. Sue Concannon, R-Beloit, asked for the bill to be introduced. “What we heard during the campaign season was that there are a lot of Kansans who want us to talk about this,” she said.
Concannon is vice-chairwoman of the Health and Human Services Committee. The committee is set to hold hearings on expansion early this month.
Kansas has one of the strictest eligibility requirements for Medicaid of any state. It is available only to pregnant women, children, disabled adults and seniors who meet certain income guidelines. Medicaid expansion provided for under the Affordable Care Act extends Medicaid to those younger than 65 whose family income is at or below 133 percent of federal poverty guidelines.
The federal government paid for 100 percent of the Medicaid expansion for 2014 through 2016. Federal funding dropped to 97 percent this year and will gradually decrease to 90 percent by 2020.
Kansas is among 19 mostly conservative states that have refused to participate in Medicaid expansion out of opposition to Obamacare. Gov. Sam Brownback has said repeatedly that Obamacare is part of the problem in Kansas, not the solution. The governor blamed Obamacare for cuts in Medicare that he said have been far more devastating to health care in Kansas than any benefits Medicaid expansion could provide.
But the Kansas Hospital Association estimates Kansas has forfeited more than $1.6 billion - and counting - in federal funds by not participating in expansion since the program began on Jan. 1, 2014. An estimated 150,000 Kansans would be covered by the expansion.
That’s a lot of residents to overlook and significant funding to dismiss.
There is the issue of Congress, which already has taken steps to repeal Obamacare. But it’s important not to confuse the unpopularity of Obamacare with the popularity of certain aspects of Obamacare. In other words, even if Obamacare is repealed, it’s reasonable to expect that aspects of the program, including Medicaid expansion, could continue.
“We need to, at least, have a thorough discussion about the needs of 150,000 Kansans who don’t have health insurance,” said Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence. “And we need to get a sense of what it would cost us should we want to provide coverage for them if it’s in a different form than under the Affordable Care Act.”
Wilson is right. Kansas has left a lot of money on the table by not participating in Medicaid expansion and the state has yet to offer an alternative solution. It’s past time to put the politics of Obamacare aside and look seriously at what federal Medicaid expansion might do to help Kansans.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.