June 2005
June 30, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers June 27, 2005)
Summer in the Statehouse
OK, let’s start by being very honest with you, this column is being written on Sunday afternoon, while the Kansas House is preparing for debate of a school finance bill–essentially in mid-special session.
That means there’s no ironclad way to predict whether the Legislature is going to pass a school finance bill, whether it is going to approve a proposed constitutional resolution that voters can consider in late August, or even whether the Legislature will still be in session at mid-week.
It’s one of those rare times when some of the "inside stuff" of the session is about all we have to go with.
For example, who would have imagined that given time after the end of the regular session in May, legislators and lobbyists and even some state agency people actually acquire tans? And, apparently, sandals. Who’d have remembered that they all turn out to be pretty close to regular people, just like the folks down the block, when it’s only every 15 years or so that we have a special session in the heat of summer?
And who would have guessed that because the ornate Senate chambers are torn up for renovation, half the bathrooms on the 3rd floor of the Statehouse would have been demolished as part of the plan? It means a longer walk for legislators, and incidentally, a little more time for lobbyists and constituents to talk to them as they journey to the bathrooms.
Oh, and because the Senate is meeting in the former Supreme Court Room on the 3rd floor of the Statehouse, it had to be reconfigured for use as the Senate. The seven top leaders of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, sit where justices used to sit, at a raised platform with a broad and ornate desk.
Because the other 33 senators are sitting in front of them, tables have been configured into an "E" shape, with Republicans at the top of the letter, sitting at heavy, wooden tables and Democrats on the bottom of the "E," sitting at smaller, less substantial folding tables than the Republicans. It puts one in mind of a family Thanksgiving dinner, where the kids sit at card tables. The Democrats are sitting at large folding tables with plastic tops, the Statehouse’s equivalent of card tables...
Remember, this whole session is really just about two things, schools and the Kansas Supreme Court’s demand that the Legislature spend another $143 million on them by July 1, and maybe where to find money for that expenditure. First, July 1 sounds like, well, a pretty formal, official date, when important things happen. This week, we’re learning that July 1, actually, is just "Friday." Sounds a little less imposing, doesn’t it?
You’d think with the major topics being schools and maybe spending, with an emphasis on casino gambling to make money for the state, it would be pretty much educators, tax opponents and gaming lobbyists hanging around the Statehouse. But you’d be wrong.
The special session has drawn about the same mix of lobbyists you would see at a regular legislative session. The livestock boys and girls are here, just in case someone in the Legislature decides to raise a little money by reimposing a property tax on livestock. Telephone lobbyists are here, just in case someone tries some new tax on calls, or has questions about competition for telecommunications services. City and county lobbyists, lobbyists for lawyers, highway lobbyists, it’s about a full house. Nobody wants to not be in the Statehouse when some legislator gets a wild idea for a tax plan that involves his or her industry. Can you imagine what the boss would say if the Legislature taxed something while its lobbyists were swimming or playing golf or painting the house? It wouldn’t be pretty back at the office.
What’s a special session like? It’s a whole lot like a regular session, only there are more golf shirts being worn, a lot more stop-and-go because not everyone is in committees when they’re not on the House or Senate floor debating, and there is probably more junk food being eaten.
It’s summertime in the Statehouse in Topeka...
June 23, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers June 20, 2005)
About casinos...There’s an interesting little concept floating around the Statehouse that has a funny cast to it.
It’s of course about gambling, because that issue is always hot, always contested, and generally about whether Indians really are any nobler or more deserving of the right to make millions of dollars than anyone else in the state.
Kansas’ only four casinos now are owned and operated by Indian tribes, because the federal government can designate Indian-owned land as "in trust" which pretty much allows them to do what they want with it, which under federal and state constitutions allows gambling if the tribes have worked out a compact with the state in which the trust land is located.
That whole procedure of designating land in trust, negotiating compacts with the state and opening casinos worked pretty well in the 1990’s. It gave four tribes in Kansas the opportunity to make money, provide entertainment, draw tourists. It generally leveled the economic playing field for people who weren’t treated well by Europeans who took their land and much of their future over the past several centuries.
Getting the federal government to put land in trust for a tribe isn’t easy, there are a lot of political barriers to the designation and by the time the process has ended, it’s easy to decide that for all they’ve been through, the tribes probably ought to be able to open casinos.
There was a cachet about Indian casinos. It almost seemed like the tribes were owed something, and casinos were a way to allow them to get it.
But the new wrinkle is the Iowa tribe, which has some land in Sedgwick County, in the town of Park City which is outside of Wichita. The tribe wants something that appears strange, at least by Statehouse standards.
It wants a license from the Kansas Lottery to operate a casino, not as a tribe, but just as a business. Nothing special, just a straight-up business deal between the Kansas Lottery, if the Legislature will give the Lottery authority to hand out licenses. No dragging the tribe through the "land in trust" issue, just a contract or two, and bring out the construction crews.
Where does the "Indianness" of this whole deal come down? Really, nowhere. The tribe wants the Lottery to be required to hand it (and the other Indian tribes in the state that have casinos) licenses to operate bigger, fancier, destination-style casinos.
But besides possibly some decor items, and feathery dusters somewhere or other, the Iowa casino would be about the same as a casino that could be operated by any other business, whether it would be Halliburton or Koch Industries or General Motors, each of which, we presume, could probably figure out how to build and run a casino profitably.
The inducement–that the tribe will come up with an initial $50 million to hand the state in cash, we guess, almost immediately–is starting to lose its luster around the Statehouse. Even somehow tying the casino’s payments to the state as a way to finance elementary and secondary education becomes stale. Practically, anyone who gets a license to build and operate a nice-sized casino can cough up $50 million in a hurry. Anyone who can’t get a bank or other lender to front a $50 million check as part of a deal to finance a casino probably is too dull to demand that a car dealer throw in floor mats with a vehicle purchase. It’s really nothing special that requires any financial savvy, yet both tribal and non-tribal casino lobbyists try to make it sound like a big deal
But, it’s the definition of an Indian tribe as something special, in order to get a license, and then to operate the casino just as any other casino operator would, that gives the deal a funny feel.
It’s sort of on-again, off-again Indianness, and it really is a proposal that uses Indianness to get something that, on the simplest basis, anyone should be able to get.
Now, the whole business of casino gambling remains shaky at the Statehouse, of course. It promises a nice cash flow for the state and tourism and a way to keep Kansans who cross into other states with their gambling money in-state. They could play some poker or slots and make it home in time for dinner.
But some special short-cut for a casino just because there are Indians involved? That doesn’t sound like it’s going to happen.
June 16, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers June 13, 2005)When you lose...
It may be unusual and possibly inconvenient, the Kansas Supreme Court’s order that the Legislature come up with another $143 million for public schools by July 1, but there’s a well-established principle at stake here.
What we seem to be forgetting–both under the Statehouse Dome and within the borders of Kansas–is that the state, for all its lamentation and moaning, lost the lawsuit and the winners are due something, maybe $143 million or more or less, but they are due something for winning.
It’s not that the hardy band of school districts which sued the state because the districts weren’t getting enough money to provide the education their pupils deserved were just taking a flyer on this. They weren’t buying the equivalent of a lottery ticket in hopes of striking it rich. The districts believed they weren’t getting enough money for their particular blend of students, all of whom they are required by state law to educate.
The facts were that because some districts didn’t have enough money, their schools weren’t turning out pupils who tested well on tests that have now become the benchmark for whether those pupils are going to be smart enough to support themselves... the sort of pupils you would want your son or daughter to marry and raise a family with. That’s the benchmark for what we expect from our public schools.
It’s easy to hang a label on the entire lawsuit as the Supreme Court ordering the Legislature to do something that the Legislature doesn’t want to do. And it’s easy to hang a label on the entire lawsuit as a takeover of authority of duly elected state senators and representatives. But the judgment came down to the Legislature persistently not spending enough tax dollars on public education, so the state lost the lawsuit.
It would have been a tribute to the strong support of public schools by elected members of the Legislature if the state had won the lawsuit, proving that it provided money for a suitable education for every child in the state. The plaintiff lawyers would have been shut down in district court, locked out of the Supreme Court and presumably would have had to go back to writing wills or suing laundries that wantonly and wilfully didn’t put enough starch in the shirts.
But, the state lost the lawsuit.
Is the money right? Is $143 million more what it takes to finance a suitable education for the children who are presented to the schools for a free education? That’s up in the air. It may not be enough money, but it’s a start. You hear a lot about it being a "down payment" or all the money that school districts could responsibly spend in one year to improve the education that they are providing our kids.
The real point, though, is that the state lost the lawsuit and the court ordered a down payment and largely adopted what the Legislature worked out as a plan to determine how much money it really takes to provide a suitable education for students. The Legislature knew it was signing on to spend more money for public education when it passed the newest school finance law. Now, maybe the Legislature passed that law to examine the costs of a suitable education with no intention of ever putting enough money into the system to accomplish that. If it did, we need a new Legislature.
Legislators are worried that their constituents will rebel against paying more taxes to provide a suitable education for the children of the state. That’s a problem, of course. It is the taxpayers/voters who set the standards for legislators and recently those taxpayers/voters have not been bashful about firing the old and hiring new representatives.
Can legislators do what the court ordered and hold on to their seats? That’s the real puzzler. Will those taxpayers/voters allow the Legislature to follow the well-established principle that when you lose a lawsuit, you pay up?
June 9, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers June 6, 2005)Simple? Probably not
If you take away all the angst, fury, hurt feelings and battle for power between the Kansas Legislature and the Kansas Supreme Court over the court’s Friday ruling that the Legislature must appropriate another $143 million for schools by July 1, the actual job of appropriating that money is almost ridiculously simple.
When you come down to the mechanics of doing what the court ordered, a simple bill could–if the Legislature was so inclined–be printed on a cocktail napkin and would just appropriate $143 million to the State Department of Education to be distributed to school districts.
Not broadly reported, but the state has the money. There’s no need to raise taxes in a special legislative session this month.
It could literally be as simple as legislators answering the roll call, taking the vote, and filling out mileage vouchers for their drive to Topeka.
But, don’t count on that. Nope.
There are too many emotions, too much lack of trust, too much looking toward next year’s elections to make what could be a simple appropriation easy.
The court, for its part, demanded that the money be appropriated by July 1. That’s somewhat remarkable, because it shows a basic lack of faith in the Legislature... or it demonstrates that the Kansas Supreme Court wants to tug the leash on the Legislature. Actually, if the Supreme Court was more interested in the result than the process, it could have ordered the Legislature to come up with the money and that appropriation would have been the first order of business when lawmakers convene for the 2006 legislative session in January. It’s doable without the July 1 deadline, it’s doable without a special session... if the court trusted the Legislature.
And legislators are emotional for a number of reasons.
First, some legislators thought they’d done a pretty good school plan this session, one that would strain state finances in coming years but avoid the necessity of a tax increase in the election-year session of 2006. The other shoe that the court dropped last week demands an additional $568 million (probably a little less) be appropriated by the 2006 Legislature, which virtually guarantees a tax increase just before voters go to the polls in August or November.
Even legislators who didn’t think they’d produced the grand champion of all school finance laws last session were hoping that they’d escape having to raise taxes before the next election.
That’s all off now.
Oh, let’s not forget that there are legislators who also believe that they’re adequately financing public education now and it’s none of the Supreme Court’s business. Among them will be some legislators who saw what they believed was a glimmer of hope last year, when the court split 4-3 to rule the state’s capital punishment law unconstitutional.
There were some among the Legislature who saw the split as an opportunity... just one more conservative justice, and the decision would have gone the other way. And, maybe, just maybe, that "other way" on the issue of death penalty would mean that if the Legislature could somehow influence, or just interfere, with the upcoming appointment to the court by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, there might be the chance for a 4-3 decision on school finance.
That didn’t happen, and if anything, the court flaunted its ability to vote unanimously on a genuine, high-profile, public policy issue. No wriggling, no dissenters were apparent in last week’s decision.
The first step is the easy one... though look for considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth. The Legislature usually stops just short of rending of garments.
But the 2006 session? With a tax increase that draws the clear specter of legislators deciding between taxpayers and the children of the state? It might be the session when garments are torn...
June 2, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers May 30, 2005)Obscure, but important
Something that has the real possibility of being important happened during the recently adjourned Kansas Legislature this year.
You didn’t read much about it during the legislative session, and you probably aren’t going to hear a lot about it from legislators who are now back at home and trying to re-learn how to buy a meal at a restaurant or a drink at a bar without a lobbyist to help..
But almost quietly, the Kansas Legislature passed a bill and the governor signed into law the creation of the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority, and handed the brand-spanking new agency the tools to make some pretty dramatic changes in the state’s energy future.
The authority, which is now mostly on paper, none of its seven members having been formally appointed, will oversee and even arrange to be built, if necessary, the network of high-capacity transmission lines that move electricity across the state and out of the state.
It’s something that sounds so simple, you wonder why nobody did it sooner.
Here are the basics: We Kansans, generally, don’t care where our electricity comes from. But when we flip the light switch we want the lights to go on and when we turn on the lathe at the factory we want it to spin and when we push the button to start our computers, they start.
More basics: We Kansans generally like our electric generating plants somewhere over the horizon. The nice thing about electric plants is that customers don’t have to watch them constantly like, say, you might a cat, or the ice bucket. Power companies have people to do that.
But those remote electric generating plants need to get their power to customers and the way that’s done over long distances is through high-voltage transmission lines that are expensive to build, relatively expensive to maintain and which don’t generally produce much revenue for power companies.
A new wrinkle appears: In southwest Kansas where natural gas fields are playing out, there is a lot of wind in areas where Flint Hills landscape groupies really don’t care if anyone puts up windmills to make electricity. The scenic considerations are, of course, a little less rigid where population is sparse and where roads are further apart, where there is less tourist traffic and probably fewer agritourism possibilities.
So, it’s bringing what could be megawatts of electric power from the west and southwest to major markets, where demand for electricity is more dense than in the west.
It’s the transmission that makes wind power valuable, and it is the transmission to major electric grids that has been a persistent problem. That’s what the Electric Transmission Authority is going to try to fix and the Legislature handed it a bunch of tools to use. The authority can help determine where lines are needed, participate in upgrades and repair of existing lines, and even provide encouragement through use of the state’s bonding agency to get private companies into the transmission business, or where necessary, build transmission lines itself.
It doesn’t come free, of course. Look for separate transmission costs on your electric bills in the future that essentially let ratepayers know how much of the price of their electricity was the long-distance transmission. What’s left, of course, is the cost of actual power, and by separating out transmission costs (which are going to have to be paid anyway), Kansas consumers are finally going to find out what their electricity costs and it might even open up markets here.
The authority is arguably one of those units of government that we’re not going to hear a lot about, but it has the real promise of helping the state become a net energy exporter, not an importer. The placement of lines not only within Kansas but to hookups in surrounding states opens markets for Kansas electricity while at the same time making sure that a disaster or interruption of operation of a Kansas utility plant doesn’t turn out the lights in the state.
It wasn’t all methamphetamines and school finance last session. Some obscure but important things got done, too