September 2009

Sept. 24, 2009
(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers on Sept. 21, 2009)

Too far?

Every now and again something that sounds like a good idea turns out to be just an idea and not exactly as good as everyone had hoped.

And strange as it sounds coming from someone who has been in the news business for nearly 40 years, some aspects of the concept of “transparency” constitute one of those ideas. Not all bad, but one that can be overdone.

The basic concept is that it ought to be possible to get on the Internet and find out what every law says, what each department does, where every dime that state government spends goes, and what everyone who works for state government earns.

The idea? That everything that is typed or put on a word processor owned by the state (that is bought with tax dollars) ought to be available to everyone anywhere. So, you can find out who got the contract to build that road, or supply the furniture or the copiers, or whatever.

It’s now possible to find out what everyone who works for the state makes, too, by name, department and job title.

Besides just nosiness--or just to add a punch line to the jokes about how many Highway Department workers can sleep in a truck—you have to wonder whether transparency has gone a little too far when it comes to pay.

For example, does some employee make enough money that he or she probably has stuff in his/her home worth breaking into to steal?

Now, that might be a little too transparent, but at some point, someone’s going to assert that as an American or Kansan he/she has a “right” to know what everyone who receives a state paycheck makes. Yet you have to wonder whether, just because a Kansan works for the state, there’s any more “public right to know” what that employee makes than the waitress or insurance salesman or welder who doesn’t work for the state.

You gotta wonder just why, besides just base curiosity, anyone really needs to know what a state employee makes. There might be some edge for employers who want to set salary levels for private business employees. It might handy if a state employee is seeking a private business job…why pay more than the market, if state pay represents what the market value for a job is?

But as public policy, you have to wonder just what has been added for the good of the state or its taxpayers. Wouldn’t aggregating salaries for different job classes within a department take care of things?

Sept. 17, 2009
(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Sept. 14, 2009)

What about August?

For years—decades in fact—Statehouse insiders have been talking about the August primary elections. Not just the voting itself, but the date of the primary election, early August.

And, for decades, the issue has been just who shows up at those August primaries to vote, and whether those voters are broadly and accurately representative of Kansans—or whether they should be.

Less than a year out from the next—and potentially volatile—August primary, it’s a good time to consider this issue, the heart of which is that most Kansans with children will tell you that there are actually just two seasons in Kansas, not four. The seasons are “school is out” and “school is in.”

“School is out” is a busy, pretty much unstructured season, when everything is just a dab more frenetic, there are kids to watch, events to line up, maybe an early August vacation for those whose kids are playing baseball or soccer or going to camps earlier in the summer. Voting in the primary election is just one more thing to squeeze into the schedule which for many includes the chance for a trip or just being together in the last few days of the season.

“School is in” is a whole other calendar. You know where the kids are, life is getting back to the schedule that it holds for nine months, and people are back to work, back on schedule. Suddenly, it’s a lot easier to figure out where to find those few minutes to choose you party’s candidate for this or that office.

Kansas has taken a lot of steps over the past decade to make it easier for Kansans to vote early or by mail and that has somewhat broadened the turnout for the primaries.

But…practically in Kansas, there aren’t a lot of contested Democratic primaries for legislative or state positions, and hardly ever a serious primary for congressional nominations.

For Republicans, the early primary brings out conservatives, leavened somewhat in some counties by early or remote or mail-in votes. But, the early primaries tend to produce the most conservative of GOP candidates for the November general election.

That works for Democrats, who have generally the most conservative candidate to run against—often one broke from primary campaign expenses. For Republicans, the campaign experience has an upside which is worth something in the general election.

But…there are still lots of Kansans who wonder whether an after “school is in” primary would change results.

And…there are Kansans who don’t want to mess with what works well for some with the “school is out” date…

Might be something interesting for the Legislature to consider, and it will be something that will get extra attention in the coming year with an unusual number of hotly contested congressional primary races in August 2010—one for the U.S. Senate and at least two for the U.S. House. Stay tuned…

Sept. 10, 2009
(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers on Sept. 7, 2009)

Kansans not using cost-cutting trick?

If there’s a bright spot to the increasing unemployment in the state, it is probably that the Kansas Department of Labor hasn’t noticed any sharp rise in a little cost-cutting trick called “misclassification” of employees.

Now, it might be a bright spot and a sign of the good character of Kansas employers, or it might be that, according to Labor Secretary Jim Garner, there are just three inspectors for the whole state designated to check into misclassification.

What’s misclassification? Basically, it’s turning an employee into an independent contractor. That means the employer pays the independent contractor a fee, and that contractor handles from his/her fee the insurance, health care, wage withholding, just about everything that typically adds 15 percent or 20 percent or more to the hourly wage an employee receives.

That makes for a fairly significant cost-reduction for employers, one that might make the difference between a business continuing to operate or folding.

There are some fairly complicated state and federal laws dealing with misclassification—essentially describing just what an employer can demand of an employee, and whether those same demands are made of an independent contractor.
Now, if an employer sets conditions of employment—tells the worker when to work, where to work, what to wear, that sort of thing—the worker is essentially an employee, which means additional payroll costs for the employer.

If an employer just says something like “I want to contract with you to re-roof the house and I’ll be back when it’s done,” then it is probably an independent contracting gig.

But in tough economic times, you gotta think that there are some employers who are willing to lay off workers and make their jobs the work of independent contractors, even if those independent contractors are the same people who recently were employees.

There are enough people out of work, or who might lose their jobs, that misclassification of workers would seem to be more likely. It’s the economy.

But if Garner says there doesn’t seem to be any more misclassification than in good times—which we hope he can tell with just three inspectors—something is apparently right in Kansas.

Sept. 3, 2009
(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Aug. 31, 2009)

What to pack?

A little over four months from now, Kansas legislators will be packing their bags for the trip to Topeka to wrestle with probably the ugliest budget that has been seen in recent memory.

But while they’re figuring out whether they really want to bring that Daffy Duck tie along, or whether there is room for both the businesslike pantsuit and the cocktailish outfit in their suitcases, they’ll also be wondering whether the heavy lifting of the new budget has already been done for them.

Decisions, decisions, decisions…

Best legislative outcome for the upcoming election-year session is the worst news that the state’s little-known but mightily important Consensus Revenue Estimating Group can come up with.

The revenue estimators are the ones who will ponder how the state’s revenues are going to do for the remainder of this budget year and next year.

It’s important because the governor—even one who continues to assert that he’s not going to run for election to a full term—by law bases his budget on the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group pronouncement on revenues. If there’s not enough money to get through the end of the current fiscal year (which ends June 30, 2010), the governor has to order up more cuts or try his hand at tax increases. If there isn’t enough revenue projected for the following fiscal year for which he and lawmakers will budget in the upcoming session, the governor has to cut costs, or try again for new revenues.

In other words, the early November Consensus Revenues shape the budget that Gov. Mark Parkinson will present to the Legislature shortly after it convenes on Jan. 11, 2010.

Now, the best thing that can happen to Parkinson is for the consensus revenue group to predict that things are getting better so he doesn’t have to cobble up a budget with dramatic cuts to services that Kansans want. If things get worse financially after the November estimate, well, then it is up to the Legislature to figure out how to balance things, which means votes for sharper budget cuts or possibly tax increases.

The worst thing for the governor? A prediction that revenues are continuing to plummet, which means an ugly budget, full of cuts. Lawmakers then can either hold their noses and approve the governor’s budget, or, if things in ensuing months get better, loudly reject Parkinson’s “draconian” budget, fatten it up and become heroes must months before next year’s elections.

And, if lawmakers can make the case they’ve saved Kansans from a harrowing budget crafted by the governor, even that ugly tie or slightly cocktailish dress won’t much be noticed by voters at home…