text:
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: The failure of Kansas lawmakers to reform state spending means you will pay. A newspaper editorial excuses bad behavior by government. Then: What do classical liberals and libertarians believe? View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 85, broadcast May 24, 2015.
Tag Archives: Wichita news media
In Wichita, bad governmental behavior excused
A Wichita newspaper op-ed is either ignorant of, or decides to forgive and excuse, bad behavior in Wichita government, particularly by then-mayoral candidate Jeff Longwell.
In a column just before the April 2015 Wichita election, Bill Wilson, managing editor of the Wichita Business Journal, reported on fallacies during the mayoral campaign, fallacies he called "glaring." 1 But only a juvenile interpretation of the facts surrounding the events could find them fallacious. This is especially troubling since Wilson covered city hall as a reporter for the Wichita Eagle.
The first reported fallacy concerns the award of the contract for the new Wichita airport terminal. Jeff Longwell, then a city council member, had received campaign contributions from executives of Key Construction, the local company bidding on the contract. He also received contributions from Walbridge, the Michigan partner of Key. The Walbridge contributions are problematic, as they were made just a few days before the vote. More arrived a few days after Longwell's vote. 2
In his column Wilson had an explanation as to why the council voted the way it did. That explanation was a matter of dispute that the council had to resolve. But the validity of the explanation is not the point. The point is something larger than any single issue, which is this: The Wichita city council was asked to make decisions regarding whether discretion was abused or laws were improperly applied. It is not proper for a council member to participate in decisions like this while the ink is still wet on campaign contribution checks from a party to the dispute. Jeff Longwell should not have voted on this matter.
For that matter, several other council members should not have voted. Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) received substantial campaign contributions from Key Construction executives several months before he voted on the airport contract. So too did Wichita City Council Member and Vice Mayor Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) . In fact, the only contributions Williams received in 2012 were from Key Construction interests. 3
Then we have Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. Here he's pictured fishing with his friend Dave Wells of Key Construction. Do you think it is proper for the mayor to have voted in a quasi-judicial role on a matter worth millions to his fishing buddy? How do you feel about the mayor voting for no-bid construction contracts for his friend? Contracts that later were found to be overpriced? 4
In Wichita, city council members receive campaign contributions while participating in a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the contributors. This doesn't seem to be improper to the Wichita Business Journal. But it isn't alone. The Wichita Eagle doesn't object to any of this. Well, maybe once in a while it does, but not very strenuously or for very long.
Another problem: Wilson dismisses the claim that Longwell was able to exert much influence over the other six council members in order to benefit a project in his council district. But during the campaign, Longwell eagerly took credit for the good things that the city council did. Though Longwell was but one of seven votes, his commercials made it seem like he performed these deeds all by himself. But when things go wrong, well, he's just one of seven votes.
The last fallacy Wilson objects to is this: "The idea that a $500 campaign contribution buys a vote, a specious claim by Americans for Prosperity that inexplicably lives on. If a council member's vote is for sale for $500, their stupidity trumps their corruption. And yet some of these false claims remain in political advertising, despite being debunked by two media outlets — and here."
A few points: First, it's not just a $500 contribution. We find many examples of individual $500 contributions from executives of the same company, along with spouses and other family members. The contributions are effectively stacked. Second, sometimes campaigns are funded to a large extent by these stacked contributions from just one or two firms. 5 Third, if these contributions are not seen as valuable to those who make them, why do the same small groups of business interests make the maximum contributions year after year?
As far as the claims being debunked: A few weeks ago I showed you the inexplicably bad reporting from the Wichita Eagle. 6 The Business Journal didn't do any better.
Wilson's op-ed seems more like an audition for a job at city hall than a critical look at the campaign and its issues. Making a move from news media to a government job in communications is a common career move. There are three former journalists working in Wichita city hall. One former Wichita Eagle reporter went to work for the Wichita school district. There are many examples in Topeka. It's a problem when journalists who are supposed to be exercising watchdog duty over government agencies end up working for them. We can also recognize when journalists are auditioning for jobs in government.
- Wichita Business Journal, 2015. 'Bill Wilson: Campaign 2015 — To Tell The Truth'. Accessed May 14 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/print-edition/2015/04/03/bill-wilson-campaign-2015-to-tell-the-truth.html. ↩
- Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell ↩
- Campaign contributions show need for reform in Wichita ↩
- Wichita considers policy to rein in council's bad behavior ↩
- Campaign contribution stacking in Wichita ↩
- Wichita Eagle fails readers, again ↩
Intrust Bank Arena loss for 2014 is $5 million
The depreciation expense of Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita recognizes and accounts for the sacrifices of the people of Sedgwick County and its visitors to pay for the arena. But no one wants to talk about this.
The true state of the finances of the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita are not often a subject of public discussion. Arena boosters promote a revenue-sharing arrangement between the county and the arena operator, referring to this as profit or loss. But this arrangement is not an accurate and complete accounting, and hides the true economics of the arena. What's missing is depreciation expense.
In February the Wichita Eagle reported: "The arena's net income for 2014 came in at $122,853, all of which will go to SMG, the company that operates the facility under contract with the county, Assistant County Manager Ron Holt said Wednesday." A reading of the minutes for the February 11 meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission finds Holt mentioning depreciation expense not a single time. Strike one.
Last December, in a look at the first five years of the arena, its manager told the Wichita Eagle this: "'We know from a financial standpoint, the building has been successful. Every year, it's always been in the black, and there are a lot of buildings that don't have that, so it's a great achievement,' said A.J. Boleski, the arena's general manager." Strike two.
I didn't notice the Eagle opinion page editorializing this year on the release of the arena's profitability figures. So here's an example of incomplete editorializing from Rhonda Holman, who opined "Though great news for taxpayers, that oversize check for $255,678 presented to Sedgwick County last week reflected Intrust Bank Arena's past, specifically the county's share of 2013 profits." (Earlier reporting on this topic in the Eagle in 2013 did not mention depreciation expense, either.) Strike three in the search for truthful accounting of the arena's finances.
The problem with the reporting of Intrust Bank Arena profits
There are at least two ways of looking at the finance of the arena. Most attention is given to the "profit" (or loss) earned by the arena for the county according to an operating and management agreement between the county and SMG, a company that operates the arena.
This agreement specifies a revenue sharing mechanism between the county and SMG. For 2103, the accounting method used in this agreement produced a profit of $705,678, to be split (not equally) between SMG and the county. The county's share, as Holman touted in her Eagle op-ed, was $255,678. (Presumably that's after deducting the cost of producing an oversize check for the television cameras.)
For 2014, the arena's profit was $122,853. All that goes to SMG, based on the revenue-sharing agreement.
While described as "profit" by many, this payment does not represent any sort of "profit" or "earnings" in the usual sense. In fact, the introductory letter that accompanies these calculations warns readers that these are "not intended to be a complete presentation of INTRUST Bank Arena's financial position and results of operations and are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America."
That bears repeating: This is not a reckoning of profit and loss in any recognized sense. It is simply an agreement between Sedgwick County and SMG as to how SMG is to be paid, and how the county participates.
A much better reckoning of the economics of the Intrust Bank Arena can be found in the 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Sedgwick County. This document holds additional information about the finances of the Intrust Bank Arena. The CAFR, as described by the county, "… is a review of what occurred financially last year. In that respect, it is a report card of our ability to manage our financial resources."
Regarding the arena, the CAFR states:
The Arena Fund represents the activity of the INTRUST Bank Arena. The facility is operated by a private company; the county incurs expenses only for certain capital improvements or major repairs and depreciation, and receives as revenue only a share of profits earned by the operator, if any, and naming rights fees. The Arena had an operating loss of $5.0 million. The loss can be attributed to $5.2 million in depreciation expense.
Financial statements in the same document show that $5,157,424 was charged for depreciation in 2014, bringing accumulated depreciation to a total of $26,347,705.
Depreciation expense is not something that is paid out in cash. Sedgwick County didn't write a check for $5,157,424 to pay depreciation expense. Instead, depreciation accounting provides a way to recognize and account for the cost of long-lived assets over their lifespan. It provides a way to recognize opportunity costs, that is, what could be done with our resources if not spent on the arena.
But not many of our public leaders recognize this. In years past, Commissioner Dave Unruh made remarks that show the severe misunderstanding that he and almost everyone labor under regarding the nature of the spending on the arena: "I want to underscore the fact that the citizens of Sedgwick County voted to pay for this facility in advance. And so not having debt service on it is just a huge benefit to our government and to the citizens, so we can go forward without having to having to worry about making those payments and still show positive cash flow. So it's still a great benefit to our community and I'm still pleased with this report."
Earlier in this article we saw examples of the Sedgwick County Assistant Manager, the Intrust Bank Arena manager, and several Wichita Eagle writers making the same mistake.
The contention — witting or not — of all these people is that the capital investment of $183,625,241 (not including an operating and maintenance reserve) in the arena is merely a historical artifact, something that happened in the past, something that has no bearing today. There is no opportunity cost, according to this view. This attitude, however, disrespects the sacrifices of the people of Sedgwick County and its visitors to raise those funds. Since Kansas is one of the few states that adds sales tax to food, low-income households paid extra sales tax on their groceries to pay for the arena — an arena where they may not be able to afford tickets.
Any honest accounting or reckoning of the performance of Intrust Bank Arena must take depreciation into account. While Unruh is correct that depreciation expense is not a cash expense that affects cash flow, it is an economic fact that can't be ignored — except by politicians, apparently. The Wichita Eagle aids in promoting this deception.
We see our governmental and civic leaders telling us that we must "run government like a business." Without frank and realistic discussion of numbers like these and the economic facts they represent, we make decisions based on incomplete and false information.
WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita Eagle reporting, marijuana laws, and the Kansas economy
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: The Wichita Eagle prints several stories that ought to cause readers to question the reliability of its newsroom. Wichita voters pass a marijuana law that conflicts state law. Performance of the Kansas economy. Finally, some unexplained results in the way people vote. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 81, broadcast April 19, 2015.
Wichita Eagle fails readers, again
In its coverage of the 2015 election, the Wichita Eagle prints several stories that ought to cause readers to question the reliability of its newsroom.
Readers of the Wichita Eagle must be wondering if the newspaper trusts its own reporting. In a fact check article regarding the Wichita mayoral general election printed on March 27, the newspaper looked at claims made by campaign ads. The story examined this claim from an advertisement by Sam Williams, referring to opponent Jeff Longwell: "Supported government handouts for low-paying jobs and then chastised voters when they rejected his plan."
The article's verdict on this claim: "There is no apparent reference to 'chastising' comments in the blog posts or article."
Here's what the Eagle itself reported on September 14, 2011, regarding the possibility that citizens might petition to overturn a measure Longwell supported. I've emphasized a few portions.
City council member Jeff Longwell called the petition drive "disappointing." "We had a very transparent, open hearing, listened to both sides, listened to all of the arguments," Longwell said. "We moved in a direction we felt was most compelling, and now you have a group that still is unhappy and it is just sour grapes. I'd argue that when they keep pulling these kinds of stunts, they will continue to lose credibility.
The dictionary holds this definition for chastise: "To criticize severely; reprimand or rebuke." I'd say that Longwell's criticisms fit this definition. It's unknown why the Eagle reporters and editors came to a different conclusion.
This is not the only example. Here's the start of the newspaper's profile of Longwell:
It's 4:45 a.m. on a Friday, and Jeff Longwell is playing basketball with a group of guys at the Northwest YMCA. Three days a week, 10 to 15 men gather before dawn to shoot hoops. Sneakers squeak. Shouts echo. Longwell, 55, jokingly describes himself as a "prolific three-point shooter." "I don't think WSU is going to recruit me," he says, worn out after the game. The guys say that if Longwell is elected mayor, he still has to play with them. He agrees. Teamwork is his style, he says, and not only in basketball.
For the Williams profile, the article started with this:
Sam Williams sits on a cerulean blue couch in his campaign headquarters, nervously picking at the edges. "Stuck in the Middle With You" plays on the radio as volunteers – mostly family members – make calls, urging people to vote for Williams for mayor on April 7. For a few moments, a guy who spent a lifetime in advertising has trouble articulating why he should be mayor of Wichita. "It's uncomfortable for me having this conversation talking about me," Williams says, still picking at the couch.
The difference in the way the Wichita Eagle chose to portray the two candidates is startling. It's not that there are no awkward or unflattering incidents that could be used to introduce Jeff Longwell. There are many. Likewise, there are many positive aspects to Sam Williams that could have been used in his introduction, including feats of athleticism. These two articles illustrate, in my opinion, an effort to promote Longwell and dismiss Williams.
This is not the only recent incident regarding the Eagle newsroom that is troubling. In the campaign for the Wichita sales tax last year, The newspaper published a fact-check article titled "Fact check: 'No' campaign ad on sales tax misleading." There was no similar article examining ads from the "Yes Wichita" group that campaigned for the sales tax. Also, there was little or no material that examined the city's claims and informational material in a critical manner.
It's one thing for the opinion page to be stocked solely with liberal columnists and cartoonists, considering the content that is locally produced. But newspapers like the Eagle tell us that the newsroom is separate from the opinion page. The opinion page endorsed Jeff Longwell for mayor, just as it endorsed passage of the sales tax. As far as the newsroom goes, by failing to hold Longwell accountable for his remarks, by printing the two introductions illustrated above, and fact-checking one side of an issue and failing to produce similar pieces for the other side — well, readers are free to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the Wichita Eagle newsroom.
WichitaLiberty.TV: A downtown parking garage deal, academic freedom attacked at KU, and classical liberalism
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: While chair of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, a Wichita business leader strikes a deal that's costly for taxpayers. A Kansas University faculty member is under attack from groups that don't like his politics. Then, how can classical liberalism help us all get along with each other? View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 68, broadcast December 14, 2014.
WichitaLiberty.TV: The Wichita Eagle fails the city and its readers
In this excerpt from WichitaLiberty.TV: In its coverage of the recent election, the Wichita Eagle has failed to inform its readers of city and state issues. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.
For more on this topic, see In election coverage, The Wichita Eagle has fallen short and For Wichita Eagle, no immediate Kansas budget solution.
Not all Wichita candidates support your right to know
As candidates spring up for Wichita mayor and city council, voters need to know that many, such as current district 2 council member Pete Meitzner and mayoral candidate Jeff Longwell, have been openly hostile towards citizens' right to know how taxpayer money is spent. Following is a news story by Craig Andres of KSN News. View video below, or click here. For more on this issue, see Open government in Kansas.
Transparency groups want to know where Wichita tax money is going to promote Wichita
WICHITA, Kansas — Public or private? GoWichita, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition get more than three million dollars a year. Some of that is taxpayer money.
"Why are their records not public?" asks Randy Brown with the Sunshine Coalition. "It's ridiculous because we ought to know. These are largely tax supported entities. It's our money that's being used. There's no reason in the world these things shouldn't be open."
The Sunshine Coalition is not alone. Bob Weeks with the Voice For Liberty is asking the same questions.
"I have asked several times for complete open records on these three entities," says Weeks." But the mayor and city council have not been interested."
Vice Mayor Pete Meitzner talked with KSN. We asked if the ledgers not being 100% public could be a problem.
"Okay, it could smell like that. But it's not because we get boards. They have review boards," says Meitzner. "They have review boards that are members of this community that would not allow it."
Meitzner says the public doesn't need to know about day-to-day spending.
"The people that would be looking at that on a daily basis would be our peer city competitors," explains Meitzner. "Oklahoma, Tulsa, Kansas City and Omaha, they would want to know everything that we are doing to get people downtown."
Still, watchdog groups say they want to know more.
"The Mayor and the City Manager say all the time that we must be transparent, that we value giving records and information to the citizen," says Bob Weeks with the Voice For Liberty. "But when it comes down to it they really don't act in the same way that they say."
WichitaLiberty.TV: Results of and reflection on the Wichita sales tax election and campaign
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: We'll look at the results of the Wichita sales tax election and what might happen next. Then, we'll evaluate the Wichita Eagle's coverage during the campaign. Also, this election raised issues of the privacy of voter data. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 65, broadcast November 16, 2014.
Claims of future transparency of Wichita tax money spending
Claims by boosters of a proposed Wichita sales tax that the city will be transparent in how money is spent must be examined in light of the city's attitude towards citizens' right to know.
When a city council member apologizes to bureaucrats because they have to defend why their agencies won't disclose how taxpayer money is spent, we have a problem. When the mayor and most other council members agree, the problem is compounded. Carl Brewer won't be mayor past April, but the city council member that apologized to bureaucrats — Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) — may continue serving in city government beyond next year's elections. Wichita City Manager Robert Layton will likely continue serving for the foreseeable future.
Why is this important? Supporters of the proposed Wichita sales tax promise transparency in operations and spending. But requests for spending records by the city's quasi-governmental agencies are routinely rebuffed. The city supports their refusal to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. Many of the people presently in charge at city hall and at agencies like Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition will still be in charge if the proposed sales tax passes. What assurances do we have that they will change their attitude towards citizens' right to know how taxpayer funds are spent?
Following, from December 2012, an illustration of the city's attitude towards citizens' right to know.
Wichita, again, fails at open government
The Wichita City Council, when presented with an opportunity to increase the ability of citizens to observe the workings of the government they pay for, decided against the cause of open government, preferring to keep the spending of taxpayer money a secret.
The occasion was consideration of renewing its contract with Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. I asked, as I have in the past for this agency and also for Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, that they consider themselves to be what they are: public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act.
In the past I've argued that Go Wichita is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. But the city disagreed. And astonishingly, the Sedgwick County District Attorney agrees with the city's interpretation of the law.
So I asked that we put aside the law for now, and instead talk about good public policy. Let's recognize that even if the law does not require Go Wichita, WDDC, and GWEDC to disclose records, the law does not prohibit them from fulfilling records requests.
Once we understand this, we're left with these questions:
Why does Go Wichita, an agency funded almost totally by tax revenue, want to keep secret how it spends that money, over $2 million per year?
Why is this city council satisfied with this lack of disclosure of how taxpayer funds are spent?
Why isn't Go Wichita's check register readily available online, as it is for Sedgwick County?
For that matter, why isn't Wichita's check register online?
It would be a simple matter for the council to declare that the city and its taxpayer-funded partner agencies believe in open government. All the city has to have is the will to do this. It takes nothing more.
Only Wichita City Council Member Michael O'Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) gets it, and yesterday was his last meeting as a member of the council. No other council members would speak up in favor of citizens' right to open government.
But it's much worse than a simple failure to recognize the importance of open government. Now we have additional confirmation of what we already suspected: Many members of the Wichita City Council are openly hostile towards citizens' right to know.
In his remarks, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) apologized to the Go Wichita President that she had become "a pawn in the policy game." He said it was "incredibly unfair that you get drawn into something like this."
He added that this is a matter for the Attorney General and the District Attorney, and that not being a lawyer, she shouldn't be expected to understand these issues. He repeated the pawn theme, saying "Unfortunately there are occasions where some people want to use great people like yourself and [Wichita Downtown Development Corporation President] Jeff Fluhr as pawns in a very tumultuous environment. Please don't be deterred by that."
Mayor Brewer added "I would have to say Pete pretty much said it all."
We've learned that city council members rely on — as Randy Brown told the council last year — facile legal reasoning to avoid oversight: "It may not be the obligation of the City of Wichita to enforce the Kansas Open Records Act legally, but certainly morally you guys have that obligation. To keep something cloudy when it should be transparent I think is foolishness on the part of any public body, and a slap in the face of the citizens of Kansas. By every definition that we've discovered, organizations such as Go Wichita are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act."
But by framing open government as a legal issue — one that only lawyers can understand and decide — Wichita city government attempts to avoid criticism for their attitude towards citizens.
It's especially absurd for this reason: Even if we accept the city's legal position that the city and its quasi-governmental taxpayer-funded are not required to fulfill records request, there's nothing preventing from doing that — if they wanted to.
In some ways, I understand the mayor, council members, and bureaucrats. Who wants to operate under increased oversight?
What I don't understand is the Wichita news media's lack of interest in this matter. Representatives of all major outlets were present at the meeting.
I also don't understand what Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) suggested I do: "schmooze" with staff before asking for records. (That's not my word, but a characterization of Williams' suggestion made by another observer.)
I and others who have made records requests of these quasi-governmental taxpayer-funded organizations have alleged no wrongdoing by them. But at some point, citizens will be justified in wondering whether there is something that needs to be kept secret.
The actions of this city have been noticed by the Kansas Legislature. The city's refusal to ask its tax-funded partners to recognize they are public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act is the impetus for corrective legislation that may be considered this year.
Don't let this new law be known as the "Wichita law." Let's not make Wichita an example for government secrecy over citizens' right to know.
Unfortunately, that bad example has already been set, led by the city's mayor and city council.
WichitaLiberty.TV: Unknown stories of economic development, Uber, Fact-checking Yes Wichita
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita economic development, one more untold story. The arrival of Uber is a pivotal moment for Wichita. Fact-checking Yes Wichita on paved streets. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 58, broadcast September 14, 2014.
In Wichita, the news is not always news the city thinks you should know
In February 2012 the City of Wichita held an election, but you wouldn't have learned of the results if your only news source was the city's website or television station. In the following article from March 2012, I wonder why news of the election results was overlooked by the city.
After last week's election results in Wichita in which voters canceled an ordinance passed by the city council, I noticed there was no mention of the election results on the city's website. So I dashed off a note to several responsible authorities, writing this:
"I notice that the city's website carries no news on the results of the February 28th election. Is this oversight unintentional? Or does the city intend to continue spending its taxpayer-funded news producing efforts on stories with headlines like 'Valentine's at Mid-Continent Airport,' 'Rain Garden Workshops in February,' and 'Firefighter Receives Puppy Rescued at Fire Scene'?"
It's not as though city staff doesn't have time to produce a story on the election. The city's public affairs department employs 15 people with an annual budget of some $1.3 million. While some of these employees are neighborhood assistants, there are still plenty of people who could spend an hour or two writing a story announcing the results of the February 28th election.
Except: That doesn't fit in with the city's political strategy. That strategy appears to be to ignore the results of the election, or to characterize the election as a narrowly-focused referendum on one obscure economic development tool.
At one time, however, the attitude of city hall was that the election was over the entire future of downtown Wichita. Mayor Carl Brewer said the election would cause "turmoil inside the community, unrest." Council member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) said we needed to have an early election date so "avoid community discourse and debate." He later backpedaled from these remarks.
But now that city hall and its allies lost the election, the issue is now cast as having been very narrow, after all. Citizens aren't against economic development incentives, they say. They're just against hotel guest tax rebates.
This narrow interpretation illustrates — again — that we have a city council, city hall bureaucracy, and allied economic development machinery that is totally captured by special interests. Furthermore, the revealed purpose of the city's public affairs department, including its television channel, is now seen as the promotion of Wichita city government, not Wichita and its citizens. These are two very different things.
Intrust Bank Arena: Not accounted for like a business
Proper attention given to the depreciation expense of Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita recognizes and accounts for the sacrifices of the people of Sedgwick County and its visitors to pay for the arena. It's a business-like way of accounting, but a well-hidden secret.
The true state of the finances of the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita are not often a subject of public discussion. Arena boosters promote a revenue-sharing arrangement between the county and the arena operator, referring to this as profit or loss. But this arrangement is not an accurate and complete accounting, and hides the true economics of the arena. What's missing is depreciation expense.
An example of the incomplete editorializing comes from Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle, who opined "Though great news for taxpayers, that oversize check for $255,678 presented to Sedgwick County last week reflected Intrust Bank Arena's past, specifically the county's share of 2013 profits."
Earlier reporting on this topic in the Eagle did not mention depreciation expense, either.
There are at least two ways of looking at the finance of the arena. Most attention is given to the "profit" (or loss) earned by the arena for the county according to an operating and management agreement between the county and SMG, a company that operates the arena.
This agreement specifies a revenue sharing mechanism between the county and SMG. For 2103, the accounting method used in this agreement produced a profit of $705,678, to be split (not equally) between SMG and the county. The county's share, as Holman touted, was $255,678. Presumably that's after deducting the cost of producing an oversize check for the television cameras.
While described as "profit" by many, this payment does not represent any sort of "profit" or "earnings" in the usual sense. In fact, the introductory letter that accompanies these calculations warns readers that these are "not intended to be a complete presentation of INTRUST Bank Arena's financial position and results of operations and are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America."
That bears repeating: This is not a reckoning of profit and loss in any recognized sense. It is simply an agreement between Sedgwick County and SMG as to how SMG is to be paid, and how the county participates.
A much better reckoning of the economics of the Intrust Bank Arena can be found in the 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Sedgwick County. This document holds additional information about the finances of the Intrust Bank Arena. The CAFR, as described by the county, "… is a review of what occurred financially at Sedgwick County in 2013. In that respect, it is a report card of our ability to manage our financial resources."
Regarding the arena, the CAFR states:
The Arena Fund represents the activity of the INTRUST Bank Arena that opened on January 9, 2010. The facility is operated by a private company; the county incurs expenses only for certain capital improvements or major repairs and depreciation, and receives as revenue only a share of profits earned by the operator, if any. The Arena had an operating loss of $4.7 million. The loss can be attributed to $5.3 million in depreciation expense.
Financial statements in the same document show that $5,295,414 was charged for depreciation in 2013, bringing accumulated depreciation to a total of $21,190,280.
Depreciation expense is not something that is paid out in cash. Sedgwick County didn't write a check for $5,295,414 in depreciation expense. Instead, depreciation accounting provides a way to recognize and account for the cost of long-lived assets over their lifespan. It provides a way to recognize opportunity costs, that is, what could be done with our resources if not spent on the arena.
But some don't recognize this. In years past, Commissioner Dave Unruh made remarks that show the severe misunderstanding that he and almost everyone labor under regarding the nature of the spending on the arena: "I want to underscore the fact that the citizens of Sedgwick County voted to pay for this facility in advance. And so not having debt service on it is just a huge benefit to our government and to the citizens, so we can go forward without having to having to worry about making those payments and still show positive cash flow. So it's still a great benefit to our community and I'm still pleased with this report."
The contention of Unruh and other arena boosters such as the Wichita Eagle editorial board is that the capital investment of $183,625,241 (not including an operating and maintenance reserve) on the arena is merely a historical artifact, something that happened in the past, something that has no bearing today. There is no opportunity cost, according to his view. This attitude, however, disrespects the sacrifices of the people of Sedgwick County and its visitors to raise those funds.
Any honest accounting or reckoning of the performance of Intrust Bank Arena must take depreciation into account. While Unruh is correct in that depreciation expense is not a cash expense that affects cash flow, it is an economic fact that can't be ignored — except by politicians, apparently.
We see our governmental and civic leaders telling us that we must "run government like a business." Without frank and realistic discussion of numbers like these and the economic facts they represent, we make decisions based on incomplete and false information.
Joseph Ashby talks about Wichita Eagle, politics
In this eight-minute excerpt from the Joseph Ashby Show, the host talks about Wichita Eagle reporting and politics.
Shame, says Wichita Eagle editorial board
The Wichita Eagle editorial board, under the byline of Rhonda Holman, issued a stern rebuke to the Kansas Legislature for its passage of HB 2506 over the weekend. (Eagle editorial: Shame on Legislature, April 8, 2014)
Here are some notes on a few of Holman's points.
She wrote that the legislature should not "undermine teachers' rights and meddle in education policymaking." First: There's controversy over what the bill actually means to the relationship between teachers and their employers. Courts will probably have to intervene. Second: Should the Legislature have a say in policy, or just pay?
Then, she criticized the bill as "passed with only Republican votes" on a "Sunday night." This reminded me of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States Senate. At the time, The Hill reported: "The Senate approved sweeping healthcare reform legislation by the narrowest of partisan margins early Christmas Eve morning" (Senate passes historic healthcare reform legislation in 60-39 vote) That's right: Votes from only one party, and on Christmas Eve.
Later in her op-ed Holman complained: "With such handling of the various bills, GOP legislative leaders also failed to reflect Brownback's State of the State assertion that the 'wonderfully untidy' business of appropriations is 'open for all to see.' They held a conference committee meeting at 3 a.m. Sunday — after media, most legislators and the teachers had left the Statehouse for the night, and with insufficient public notice." Reading this, I was again reminded of the passage of Obamacare, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her famous explanation as reported by Politico:
"You've heard about the controversies, the process about the bill .. but I don't know if you've heard that it is legislation for the future — not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America," she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy."
On the expansion of innovative districts, Holman wrote: "Nobody even knows whether the new 'innovative districts' program will work or is constitutional," calling it an "accountability-free concept." Well, we know that an important provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was ruled unconstitutional (the expansion of Medicaid), and Chief Justice John Roberts had to torture logic and the plain meaning of words in order to shoehorn the individual mandate into the Constitution.
I'm not saying that I approve of the way the Kansas Legislature approved this bill. But if it worked for Obamacare, and if Rhonda Holman and the Wichita Eagle editorial board like Obamacare (they do), well, you can draw your own conclusions.
Also, Holman complained of "unproven ideological reforms" contained in the Kansas school legislation. Two things: First, we know that the present system of public education in Kansas is not working for many children. For example, if we critically examine the National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores that Kansans are so proud of, we find that for some groups of students, the national public school average beats or ties Kansas.
Or, if we read the National Center for Education Statistics report Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales, we can learn that Kansas has relatively low standards for its schools, and when Kansas was spending more on schools due to the Montoy decision from the Kansas Supreme Court, the state lowered the standards.
I'm of the opinion that whenever someone criticizes their opponents as ideological — as the Wichita Eagle editorial board has — they don't have a very good argument. They're likely confusing ideology with partisanship. The Wikipedia entry for ideology says: "An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things. … Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought."
I wish the Eagle editorial board was more ideological. If it firmly believed in economic freedom, free markets, limited government, and individual liberty — that's an ideology we could live with, and Kansas schoolchildren could thrive under.
Instead, we're left with the Wichita Eagle editorial board's ideology of less educational freedom and less accountability to those who pay the bills and parent the students.
Kansas newspapers against the children
A Kansas newspaper editorial illustrates that for the establishment, schools — the institution of public schools, that is — are more important than students.
An unsigned editorial in the Garden City Telegram proclaimed "Another attempt to undermine public schools materialized last week in the Kansas Statehouse." (Legislators turn to ALEC for poor plan on schools, March 25, 2014.)
What was in a bill that so worried the Telegram editorial writers? According to the op-ed, the dangerous provisions are "expansion of charter schools, overhaul of teacher licensing and tax breaks for private school scholarships."
To the Telegram, these ideas are "radical" and would "undermine" public schools. These ideas are from American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), purportedly funded by Charles and David Koch. To low-information newspaper editorialists, the source of an idea alone is sufficient evidence to condemn it. To buttress its argument, the Telegram mentions the Koch Brothers several times along with Americans for Prosperity, the tea party, and other "special interests."
What's curious is that the op-ed says "ALEC promotes concepts of free-market enterprise and limited government, which are worthy of discussion in legislative pursuits." It's good that the op-ed writers realize this. Very good.
But the next sentence criticizes ALEC's "one-size-fits-all approach." That's a strange claim to make. The education reforms that ALEC supports — and the public school establishment hates — are centered around providing more choices for students and parents. The public schools that the Telegram defends are the "one-size-fits-all approach." School choice programs foster diversity, creativity, and entrepreneurship in education. Government schools are the opposite.
Further, these school choice programs do not "target" public schools, as claimed in this op-ed. It is true that school choice programs provide competition for public schools. But to say that giving choices to parents and students is targeting public schools assumes a few things: First, it assumes that the institution of public schools is more important than Kansas schoolchildren.
Second, it assumes that public schools are somehow more worthy of taxpayer funds than are charter schools and private schools. But should taxpayer funds be spent where government school bureaucrats want, or where parents believe their children will get the best education?
Third, allowing and encouraging competition is not "targeting." Proclaiming this reveals lack of understanding of economic competition in markets. In the jungle, the winners kill and eat the losers. But in markets, competition is a discovery process. Competition spurs people to innovate with new products, or become more efficient. As new products and services are discovered and refined through competition, the old products and services must adapt or fall by the wayside. But the old stuff doesn't die, as do animals in the jungles. People and capital assets from failing enterprises are recycled into the new successful enterprises, and life goes on — except everything is better.
That's the real problem. Kansas schools are not getting better. Editorials like this are part of the problem. It doesn't help that the Wichita Eagle excerpted this editorial.
Wichita Business Journal remodels, features Charles Koch interview
The Wichita Business Journal has, it its own words, "reinvented" itself, and starts its new life with features on Koch Industries and an extended interview with Charles Koch.
To get started, the weekly newspaper has made its complete digital edition available to read at no charge. Click here for access.
The interview with Koch is wide-ranging, covering the business interests of Koch Industries and Koch's political involvement, detailing his relationship with Americans for Prosperity. An example quote: "When you start attacking cronyism and people's political interests, it gets nasty."
What is the import of the farm bill to Kansas?
Correcting the Wichita Eagle's facts will place the importance of the farm bill to Kansas in proper perspective.
In criticizing five of the six members of the Kansas congressional delegation for voting against the farm bill, Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle editorialized this: "Five of the six members of the Kansas delegation just voted against a farm bill — a stunning abdication of leadership in a state in which agriculture is 25 percent of the economy." (Eagle editorial: AWOL on farm bill, Wednesday, February 5, 2014)
The Eagle editorialist didn't specify what she meant by "percent of the economy" or where she got these figures. But the most common measure of the size of an economy is gross domestic product (GDP), and it's easy to find.
Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of the U.S. Department of Commerce) for 2012 tells us that the category "Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting" contributed $5,428 million towards the total Kansas GDP of $138,953 million. That means agriculture contributed 3.9 percent to Kansas GDP. The Eagle based its argument on a value of 25 percent, a value that's 6.4 times the actual value.
If you included the category "Food and beverage and tobacco product manufacturing" you'd add a few additional percentage points. But you'd still have a number that is just a fraction of what the Eagle editorial board believes to be the contribution of agriculture to the Kansas economy.
Now that you have the facts that the Wichita Eagle doesn't have, how important do you think is the farm bill to Kansas?
Besides this, the Eagle praised former U.S. Senator Bob Dole for his "effort to bind rural and urban interests in agricultural policy by including food stamps in the nation's safety net for farmers." In political science this is called logrolling. It's one of the reasons why government continues to grow faster than our willingness to pay for it. I think the Wichita Eagle likes that.
It's for things like this that Dan Mitchell created the "Bob Dole Award" for Misguided Conservatives. It's for those who fit this description:
"If you say something about fiscal policy and a statist can respond by saying "I agree, so let's raise taxes," then you've made the mistake of focusing on red ink rather than the real problem of too much government spending."
Mitchell explains the naming of the award:
Naming the award after Bob Dole also is appropriate since he was never a sincere advocate of limited government. The Kansas lawmaker was a career politician who said in his farewell speech that his three greatest achievements were a) creating the food stamp program, b) increasing payroll taxes, and c) imposing the Americans with Disabilities Act (no wonder I wanted Clinton to win in 1996).
For all of these reasons, and more, no real conservative should want to win an award linked to Bob Dole.
Transparency groups want to know where Wichita tax money is going to promote Wichita
By Craig Andres, KSN News. View video below, or click here. For more on this issue, see Open government in Kansas.
WICHITA, Kansas — Public or private? GoWichita, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition get more than three million dollars a year. Some of that is taxpayer money.
"Why are their records not public?" asks Randy Brown with the Sunshine Coalition. "It's ridiculous because we ought to know. These are largely tax supported entities. It's our money that's being used. There's no reason in the world these things shouldn't be open."
The Sunshine Coalition is not alone. Bob Weeks with the Voice For Liberty is asking the same questions.
"I have asked several times for complete open records on these three entities," says Weeks." But the mayor and city council have not been interested."
Vice Mayor Pete Meitzner talked with KSN. We asked if the ledgers not being 100% public could be a problem.
"Okay, it could smell like that. But it's not because we get boards. They have review boards," says Meitzner. "They have review boards that are members of this community that would not allow it."
Meitzner says the public doesn't need to know about day-to-day spending.
"The people that would be looking at that on a daily basis would be our peer city competitors," explains Meitzner. "Oklahoma, Tulsa, Kansas City and Omaha, they would want to know everything that we are doing to get people downtown."
Still, watchdog groups say they want to know more.
"The Mayor and the City Manager say all the time that we must be transparent, that we value giving records and information to the citizen," says Bob Weeks with the Voice For Liberty. "But when it comes down to it they really don't act in the same way that they say."
WichitaLiberty.TV January 5, 2014
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: A look back at a few problematic issues regarding ethical government in Wichita in 2013. Topics include: Campaign contributions, the timing of city and school board elections, Mayor Carl Brewer's integrity and threats, the need for campaign finance reform, the firing of a television news reporter, the apparently non-transparent way the city formulates policy, and the useless feedback systems the city relies on. Episode 26, broadcast January 5, 2014. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.
WichitaLiberty.TV September 1, 2013
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV, host Bob Weeks presents an analysis of the delinquent real estate tax list and wonders why our institutions don't provide this simple enhancement. Then, a review of the first two chapters of "Economics in One Lesson" with application to situations in Wichita. Finally, Amanda BillyRock illustrates Chapter 3: Blessings Of Destruction, and examples in Wichita are noted. Episode 11, broadcast September 1, 2013. View below, or click here to view on YouTube.
Wichita mayor said to be 'under lockdown'
When Wichita ABC affiliate KAKE Television ran a news story critical of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, reporter Jared Cerullo wasn't able to interview Brewer to get his reaction to his critics. The mayor refused to talk to Cerullo.
Speaking last week at the Wichita Pachyderm Club, KAKE news anchor Jeff Herndon said that KAKE has "repeatedly" tried to get an on-camera interview with Brewer. But the mayor is always busy, Herndon said: "They've got him on lockdown. He's not going to answer that."
Herndon was speaking for himself, and not for his employer. In his talk to the Pachyderms, he was critical of Wichita news media — both television and print — for not covering city government rigorously, telling the audience: "We need more reporters on that city government beat, and not just on decisions they make. We need to hold them accountable for the decision. We don't do that."
Brewer is sometimes mentioned as a candidate for higher office, perhaps challenging Kansas Governor Sam Brownback next year. Brewer's term as mayor ends in April 2015. He is not eligible for election to another term as mayor because of Wichita's term limits law.
- The KAKE news story referred to is Wichita Mayor Scrutinized For Controversial Vote. Both text and video are available.
- On his radio program, Joseph Ashby had an interesting take on Herndon's remarks and Wichita new media.
- Video of the city council meeting that was the subject of the KAKE news story is here.
- Explanation of the public policy angle that drove citizens to testify at the April 16 city council meeting is here.
- The original article that identified the problem and to solutions is Pay-to-play laws are needed in Wichita and Kansas. In that article I wrote: "When one looks at the candidates these people contribute to, you notice that often there's no commonality to the political goals and ideals of the candidates. Some people contribute equally to liberal and conservative council members. Then, when these people appear in the news after having received money from the Wichita City Council, it snaps into place: These campaign donors are not donating to those whose ideals they agree with. They're donating so they can line their own pockets."
Joseph Ashby on local news media, anti-conservative bias
Last week KAKE Television news anchor Jeff Herndon addressed the Wichita Pachyderm Club. Today, on the Joseph Ashby Show, the host commented on Herndon's views on Wichita news media, and drew some conclusions about anti-conservative bias in Wichita news media.
The KAKE Television news story referred to is Wichita mayor comes under scrutiny for controversial vote.
Wichita Eagle editorial board on the truth
A recent Wichita Eagle editorial penned by Rhonda Holman took Governor Sam Brownback to task for a mistake made in reporting Kansas spending numbers. (Eagle editorial: Brownback 's numbers are suspect.)
Specifically, Holman wrote:
What's going on here is clear: Brownback is embracing and repeating numbers that help promote his agenda, including what he sees as the need to push back against a court order for more state funding of public schools.
But Kansans need to trust that what they hear from their governor, especially again and again, is rooted in truth, not cherry-picked, spun or flat wrong.
So let's look at the use of numbers by the Wichita Eagle editorial board. When discussing school spending, the editorialists refer to base state aid per pupil and treat that as though it was the totality of school spending.
Base state aid per pupil is just part of school spending, and most schools spend much more than that. Specifically, base state aid per pupil for the last school year was $3,780. But the state spent an average of $6,983 per pupil that year, which is an additional $3,203 or 84.7 percent more than base state aid. Overall spending from all sources was $12,656 per pupil. Both of the latter numbers are higher than the previous year.
Also, base state aid per pupil has declined in recent years. That's a convenient fact for school spending boosters. They can use a statistic that contains a grain of truth in order to whip up concern among the uninformed over inadequate school spending. They can cite this as an argument for increasing spending, even though spending has been rising.
(By the way, when citizens in Kansas and across the nation are asked questions about school spending, we learn they are totally uninformed. Even worse, several candidates for the Wichita school board are similarly uninformed. See Wichita school board candidates on spending.)
Further, citing only base state aid reduces "sticker shock." Most people are surprised to learn that our schools spend $12,656 per student. It's much easier to tell taxpayers that only $3,780 was spent. But that's not a complete picture. In fact, using base state aid as a measure of school spending defines "cherry-picked," a practice of which Holman accuses the governor.
Informed readers are left wondering whether the Eagle editorial board is ignorant of these facts, or does it have an agenda to push — just like they accuse Brownback.
Here's something else from Holman in the editorial:
Plus, Brownback has said that "29 percent of Kansas fourth-graders can't read at a basic level." That's a misuse of the results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress survey, in which Kansas actually ranked 10th best in the nation. The better measure is the state assessment, which found 10.1 percent of fourth-graders failed to meet the state standard in reading that year.
The high ranking of Kansas on the NAEP can be explained by the demographic composition of Kansas students compared to other states. As I show in Kansas school test scores, in perspective, Kansas students score better than Texas students on the NAEP. This is a fact congruent with Holman's citing of Kansas' high ranking among the states.
But it is also true that Texas white students score better than Kansas white students, Texas black students score better than Kansas black students, and Texas Hispanic students score better than or tie Kansas Hispanic students. The same pattern holds true for other ethnic subgroups. If we examine figures for low-income students, we see a similar pattern.
How can this be? You have to look more closely at the figures than the Wichita Eagle editorial board is willing or able. But if you do this, you will understand more about Kansas schools.
As far as relying on Kansas state assessments to gauge our schools' performance, we need to be careful. When compared to other states, Kansas has low standards, and these standards have declined.
The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has analyzed state standards, and we can see that Kansas has standards that are below most states. The table of figures is available at Estimated NAEP scale equivalent scores for state proficiency standards, for reading and mathematics in 2009, by grade and state. An analysis of these tables by the Kansas Policy Institute shows that few states have standards below the Kansas standards.
The editorial board might also wonder why scores on the Kansas assessments — the ones under control of Kansas education officials — are rising, while NAEP scores are not.
A reader sent in this comment, which I believe is apt:
To paraphrase a trusted source:
"[The Eagle's] numbers matter because they're being used by [Democrats] and [government employees' unions] to guide and justify state spending policy decisions, especially in education. The [Eagle] has used [misleading statistics] to drum up public support for plans to [raise] income taxes and to [support] a recent court decision that found the state isn't meeting its constitutional mandate to provide adequate funding for schools."
I don't expect a correction anytime soon.
Wichita Eagle editorial board: When writing that "Kansans need to trust that what they hear from their governor, especially again and again, is rooted in truth, not cherry-picked, spun or flat wrong" please apply this standard to yourself.
Downtown Wichita economic development numbers questioned
When the Wichita City Council recently received the 2012 Project Downtown Annual Report, a city council member took the opportunity to question and clarify some of the facts and figures presented in the report.
In his questions, Wichita City Council Member Paul Gray (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) asked whether the amount of public investment presented did, in fact, include all public investment.
In his answer, Scott Knebel, who is Downtown Revitalization Manager, said no, not all forms of public investment were included in the figures presented in the report. He told the council that an analysis is being prepared, perhaps to be available in May.
Gray urged Knebel to be more forthcoming when reporting on the level of public investment in order to gain a better level of community buy-in: "If you truly want a greater level of community buy-in, being as forthcoming as we can with the financial analysis of these projects and truly demonstrating what we as a community are putting in through all the different public financing mechanisms available. You may not persuade the people who don't like public participation in projects — you're not going to change their viewpoints by that and I don't expect you to — but the difference is you may get more trust and buy-in from the community that thinks you're not being forthcoming and honest with them."
Regarding Wichita news media, Gray said the media may say "'See, it's a 90 percent private funded ratio versus 10 percent' which is not really the case. We're skewing actual numbers to demonstrate our successes downtown, but I think our successes downtown speak for themselves."
Knebel and Wichita Downtown Development Corporation President Jeff Fluhr promised to be more forthcoming with investment figures in the future.
Gray also asked about the city's practice of building retail space and practically giving it away to developers, who can then lease the space and earn outsized returns at taxpayer expense. I reported this at the time this lease was under consideration by the city council:
According to a letter of intent approved by the city council — and sure to become law after a public hearing at a meeting of the Wichita City Council on September 13th — the city is planning to build about 8,500 square feet of retail space in a downtown parking garage. The garage is being built, partly, to serve a hotel Burk and partners are developing.
Here are the details of the deal Burk and his partners are getting from the taxpayers of Wichita: The city plans to lease this space to Burk and $1.00 per year. Not $1.00 per square foot, but $1.00 for the entire space — all 8,500 square feet.
That's the plan for the first five years. For the next 10, the city would charge $21,000 rent per year, which is a rate of about $2.50 per square foot.
For years 15 through 20, the rent increases to $63,000, or $7.41 per square foot. At the end of this period, Burk will have the option of purchasing the space for $1,120,000, which is a cost of about $132 per square foot.
That cost of $132 per square foot is within the range of what sources in the real estate industry tell me top-quality retail space costs to build in Wichita, which is from $130 to $140 per square foot. Rents asked for that space would be from $15 to $18 per square foot per year.
Using the low figure, Burk could expect to collect about $127,500 in annual rent on space he rents for $1.00, leaving a gross profit of $127,499 for him. As the $15 rent is a net figure, Burk's tenants will pay taxes, insurance, and maintenance.
Wichita city manager Robert Layton answered Gray by saying that real estate leasing is not an area of the city's expertise.
Without Gray's questions, these important matters of public policy would likely not have been brought to public attention. For mentioning these topics, Gray was — in an attempt at humor by Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) — branded as "Debby Downer."
Citizens might expect that as millions in public funds are invested, someone in city hall is keeping track, and that there is a plan for reporting these numbers. Citizens should ask why Mayor Brewer, City Manager Layton, and current council members are not concerned that there appears to be no such plan for accountability.
The notion of reporting that there was only $10.7 million in "public projects" in 2012 is absurd. Just one project, the Ambassador Hotel, received $15,407,075 in taxpayer funds to get started, and then was slated to receive $321,499 per year for the first five years, with smaller amounts for 22 years. Wichita voters rejected a small part of the ongoing subsidy, but the rest remained.
As to city manager Layton's answer that the city is not experience in real estate leasing, my response is well, why then did you get involved? It's not the first time the city has made such a sweetheart lease deal with some of the same parties. It's become almost routine, as I reported at the time this lease was being considered:
While most citizens might be shocked at the many layers of subsidy offered to Burk, he's accustomed to such treatment. In 2003, the city offered a similar deal to Burk and his partners for retail space that is part of the Old Town Cinema project. That deal was made with Cinema Old Town, LLC, whose resident agent is David Burk. According to the Wichita Eagle, other partners in this corporation include Wichita theater owner Bill Warren, real estate agent Steven Barrett, Key Construction and seven others.
David Wells, one of the owners of Key Construction, is a partner with Burk on the new hotel project, and Key is slated to build the garage under a process that doesn't require competitive bidding, even though city money is used to pay for it. Note: Later the garage was put out for competitive bid.
The Old Town project let Burk and his partners lease 17,500 square feet of retail space from the City of Wichita for $1.00 per year for the first five years. Like the proposed project, that's not $1.00 per square foot, but $1.00 per year for all 17,500 square feet.
I wonder: Is the fact that these parties — Burk, Key Construction, Bill Warren — are reliable campaign contributors to Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and many other Wichita City Council members, does that mean anything?
Wichita Eagle reporting on this meeting is at City Council member Paul Gray questions numbers by Wichita Downtown Development.
Downtown Wichita issues not appreciated
Once again, the Wichita Eagle editorial board misses the point regarding downtown Wichita development.
There may be some that are opposed to downtown simply because it's downtown, or for other silly reasons. That seems to be the focus of Rhonda Holman's editorial today.
But speaking from a perspective of economic freedom and individual liberty, it's government interventionism in downtown that I object to. This is what harms Wichita, not the fact that people are living and working downtown or anywhere else, for that matter.
The political cronyism involved in many projects in downtown Wichita is what harms our city. When government takes from one and gives to another, everyone is worse off — other than the recipients. I understand that it's easy to look at a subsidized project — be it downtown or elsewhere — and see people working at jobs. It's much more difficult, however, to see the harm that the government intervention causes: Prosperity and jobs are lost due to inefficient government allocation of capital through political, not market, mechanisms. In the whole, we are worse off, not better.
If you don't believe this — if you insist that the city government can create jobs and prosperity through its interventions, and that these have no net cost — then you have to ask why the city is not involved in more development.
It is the principled objection to government involvement that many do not understand, including, I think, the Wichita Eagle editorial board. An example: In September 2011, after I and others started a campaign to overturn a city council decision to award a tax subsidy to the Ambassador Hotel, the hotel's lead developer asked to meet with me. In the meeting I explained that I would oppose the city's action if applied to any hotel, located anywhere in Wichita, owned by anyone. He said that he sensed my opposition was based on principle, and I agreed.
The curious thing is that this seemed to puzzle him — that people would actually apply principles to politics.
The political allocation of investment capital in Wichita leads to problems of the appearance of impropriety, if not actual impropriety. There is a small group of people that repeatedly receive large amounts of taxpayer subsidy. These people and others associated with their companies regularly contribute to the campaign funds of city council members and candidates. These council members then vote to grant these people taxpayer-funded subsidy, year after year.
City council members also vote to award them with no-bid contracts. That's terrible government policy. Especially when one recent contract was later put to competitive bid, and turned out to cost much less than the no-bid price. City council members, all except one, were willing to award their significant campaign contributors with an overpriced no-bid contract at taxpayer expense.
The company that won the no-bid contract was Key Construction. Its owners and executives were the sole contributors to the campaign fund of Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) in 2012 as she prepared to run for reelection this spring.
James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita), also running for reelection this spring, and also having voted for the no-bid contract for Key, also received many contributions from Key and its executives in 2012. That company, along with person associated with one other company, were the sole source of Clendenin's campaign funding that year.
Doesn't the Wichita Eagle editorial board see a problem here? Doesn't the newsroom?
There was a time when newspaper opinion editors crusaded against this type of behavior.
Newspaper editorial writers ought also to be concerned about how taxpayer funds are spent. The City of Wichita, however, has established non-profit organizations to spend taxpayer funds. The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, for example, is funded almost exclusively through taxes. Yet, it claims that it is not a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act, and therefore need not fulfill records requests seeking to bring transparency as to how the agency spends its taxpayer funds. The city, inexplicably, backs WDDC in this interpretation of law that is contrary to the interests of citizens.
Secrecy of this type regarding taxpayer funds is not good public policy. There was a time when newspaper editors railed against government secrecy like this.
We need a newspaper editorial board that understands principle vs. political expediency. As a first step, let's ask for an editorial board that recognizes these abuses of citizens and is willing to talk about them.
Wichita, again, fails at open government
The Wichita City Council, when presented with an opportunity to increase the ability of citizens to observe the workings of the government they pay for, decided against the cause of open government, preferring to keep the spending of taxpayer money a secret.
The occasion was consideration of renewing its contract with Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. I asked, as I have in the past for this agency and also for Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, that they consider themselves to be what they are: public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act.
In the past I've argued that Go Wichita is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. But the city disagreed. And astonishingly, the Sedgwick County District Attorney agrees with the city's interpretation of the law.
So I asked that we put aside the law for now, and instead talk about good public policy. Let's recognize that even if the law does not require Go Wichita, WDDC, and GWEDC to disclose records, the law does not prohibit them from fulfilling records requests.
Once we understand this, we're left with these questions:
Why does Go Wichita, an agency funded almost totally by tax revenue, want to keep secret how it spends that money, over $2 million per year?
Why is this city council satisfied with this lack of disclosure of how taxpayer funds are spent?
Why isn't Go Wichita's check register readily available online, as it is for Sedgwick County?
For that matter, why isn't Wichita's check register online?
It would be a simple matter for the council to declare that the city and its taxpayer-funded partner agencies believe in open government. All the city has to have is the will to do this. It takes nothing more.
Only Wichita City Council Member Michael O'Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) gets it, and yesterday was his last meeting as a member of the council. No other council members would speak up in favor of citizens' right to open government.
But it's much worse than a simple failure to recognize the importance of open government. Now we have additional confirmation of what we already suspected: Many members of the Wichita City Council are openly hostile towards citizens' right to know.
In his remarks, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) apologized to the Go Wichita President that she had become "a pawn in the policy game." He said it was "incredibly unfair that you get drawn into something like this."
He added that this is a matter for the Attorney General and the District Attorney, and that not being a lawyer, she shouldn't be expected to understand these issues. He repeated the pawn theme, saying "Unfortunately there are occasions where some people want to use great people like yourself and [Wichita Downtown Development Corporation President] Jeff Fluhr as pawns in a very tumultuous environment. Please don't be deterred by that."
Mayor Brewer added "I would have to say Pete pretty much said it all."
We've learned that city council members rely on — as Randy Brown told the council last year — facile legal reasoning to avoid oversight: "It may not be the obligation of the City of Wichita to enforce the Kansas Open Records Act legally, but certainly morally you guys have that obligation. To keep something cloudy when it should be transparent I think is foolishness on the part of any public body, and a slap in the face of the citizens of Kansas. By every definition that we've discovered, organizations such as Go Wichita are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act."
But by framing open government as a legal issue — one that only lawyers can understand and decide — Wichita city government attempts to avoid criticism for their attitude towards citizens.
It's especially absurd for this reason: Even if we accept the city's legal position that the city and its quasi-governmental taxpayer-funded are not required to fulfill records request, there's nothing preventing from doing that — if they wanted to.
In some ways, I understand the mayor, council members, and bureaucrats. Who wants to operate under increased oversight?
What I don't understand is the Wichita news media's lack of interest in this matter. Representatives of all major outlets were present at the meeting.
I also don't understand what Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) suggested I do: "schmooze" with staff before asking for records. (That's not my word, but a characterization of Williams' suggestion made by another observer.)
I and others who have made records requests of these quasi-governmental taxpayer-funded organizations have alleged no wrongdoing by them. But at some point, citizens will be justified in wondering whether there is something that needs to be kept secret.
The actions of this city have been noticed by the Kansas Legislature. The city's refusal to ask its tax-funded partners to recognize they are public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act is the impetus for corrective legislation that may be considered this year.
Don't let this new law be known as the "Wichita law." Let's not make Wichita an example for government secrecy over citizens' right to know.
Unfortunately, that bad example has already been set, led by the city's mayor and city council.
Wichita Eagle fact checks Ambassador Hotel campaigns
As campaign chair for Tax Fairness for All Wichitans, I'm very concerned that the campaign is accurate and truthful in everything it does. I insist on adhering to that standard, starting with myself.
Now that the Wichita Eagle has published its fact checking article (Fact-checking claims on the Ambassador Hotel vote), I can say that this goal has been met. While the Eagle took issue with one of my claims, upon closer examination, there really is no issue at all.
But the same can't be said for the claims made by the "Vote Yes" side. That side of the issue is championed by a group named "Moving Wichita Forward," managed by Sheila Tigert. While the Eagle article said there were "three instances where semantic liberties have been taken with the facts surrounding the development," the article finds four problems.
Specifically, the jobs claim made by Moving Wichita forward "is a stretch," according to the director of the Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research. The number claimed is grossly exaggerated.
Second, Moving Wichita Forward's claim of "No new taxes" is refuted by the two cents per dollar Community Improvement District tax created for the hotel's exclusive benefit.
Third, Moving Wichita Forward ignores the economic impact of the $7.3 million in tax credits the hotel is receiving. Taxpayers across Kansas ($3.8 million) and the entire country ($3.5 million) have to make up the missing tax revenue that was diverted to the hotel developer.
Fourth, Moving Wichita Forward "incorrectly frames the project's return on investment for the city of Wichita."
The Eagle took issue with my claim that Wichita's Tourism and Convention fund is losing $2 million this year, and therefore needs revenue from hotel guest taxes.
The Eagle consulted Wichita assistant finance director Rob Raine, who disputed the claim of the loss. But to believe what Raine contends, you would have to suspend belief in the economic reality of events. You would also have to come to the realization that Wichita city budget documents can't be taken at face value.
Dave Trabert, who is president of Kansas Policy Institute and has experience with accounting, left a comment to the Eagle article that explains. He wrote:
A little fact-checking of the city's claims about its budget might be in order. Page 328 of Wichita's 2012/2013 Annual Budget shows the following for the Tourism and Convention Fund:2012 Adopted: Budgeted Revenues $5,977,210 Budgeted Expenses $7,983,130 Budgeted Loss ($2,005,919) 2012 Beginning Fund Balance $2,400,664 2012 Budgeted Loss ($2,005,919) 2012 Ending Fund Balance $394,745
The City also budgeted for a $379,042 loss in 2013, which would bring the fund balance down to just $15,703.
The Vote No group is not misreading the budget as claimed by the city. If anything, the city is attempting to misguide the Eagle reporter. If the city isn't going to lose money this year and next as budgeted, they should openly explain what costs are being eliminated or revenues added to make up the difference. Until then, citizens must reasonably conclude that the budget is accurate.
In a later comment Trabert added: "The city is also falsely claiming that reserves are 'appropriated,' implying that reserves are part of the $8 million in expenditures. Page 328 of the budget very clearly identifies the $8 million in budgeted expenditures and reserves are not part of that total. The budgeted $2 million net loss is deducted from beginning reserves as explained in my earlier post."
The tourism and convention budget may be viewed on page 328 of this document: Wichita Adopted Supplemental Budget 2012-2013. An excerpt from the budget of the relevant page may be viewed at Wichita Tourism and Convention Fund Budget 2012 – 2013.
Wichita voters should not be mislead by Moving Wichita Forward, a campaign that is now shown to have little concern for being truthful.
More information about the election and its issues are at Wichita Ambassador Hotel information sheet and Fact checking the Wichita Ambassador Hotel campaign.
Wichita City Council bows to special interests
Yesterday's meeting of the Wichita City Council revealed a council — except for one member — totally captured by special interests, to the point where the council, aided by city staff, used a narrow legal interpretation in order to circumvent a statutorily required public hearing process.
The issue was a downtown hotel to be developed by a team lead by David Burk of Marketplace Properties. The subsidies Burk wants, specifically tax increment financing (TIF), require a public hearing to be held. The city scheduled the hearing for September 13th.
That schedule, however, didn't suit Burk. In order to provide him a certain comfort level, the council agreed to issue a letter of intent stating that the council intends to do the things that the public hearing is supposed to provide an opportunity for deliberation.
I, along with others, contend that this action reduces the September 13th public hearing to a meaningless exercise. This action is not good government, and it's not open and transparent government, despite the claims of Mayor Carl Brewer. It goes against our country's principle of the rule of law, part of which holds that our laws are more important than any single person.
Several times council members — and once city attorney Gary Rebenstorf — explained that the letter of intent is non-binding on either party. But: No matter what information is presented at the September public hearing, no matter how strong public opinion might be against the incentives involved, is there any real likelihood that the council would not proceed with this plan and its incentives, having already passed a letter of intent to do so? I think there is very little possibility of that.
Persuasive arguments will be made that since the city issued a letter of intent, and since the developers may have already taken action based on that letter, it follows that the city is obligated to pass the plan. Otherwise, who would ever vest any meaning in a future letter of intent from this city?
During the discussion, no one was able to explain adequately why a letter of intent — if it is non-binding and therefore does not commit the city — was asked for by the developers. Despite the lawyerly explanation of Rebenstorf and council members — including the mayor — the letter does have meaning. Practically, it has such a powerful meaning that it makes the holding of the public hearing on September 13th a mere charade, a meaningless exercise in futility.
It's not just me and a handful of others who contend this. The Wichita Eagle's Rhonda Holman, who is usually in favor of all forms of public spending on downtown, wrote: "Even though the letter of intent will be nonbinding, it risks making the Sept. 13 public hearing on tax-increment financing seem like a pointless afterthought."
In his remarks, City Manager Bob Layton explained that the meeting was the first time for council members to "formally vet this project and all of the incentives."
He added: "If the council were to say, for instance, there were two or three pieces of that that you had discomfort with, that would then put everyone on notice that the deal may not go forward." He said this is the purpose of today's action, and he added that the action is non-binding.
I would suggest that since the council, with the exception of Council Member Michael O'Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita), found no problems with issuing the letter of intent, it has no problems with the deal, and this is what makes the September public hearing, as Holman said, a "pointless afterthought."
Astonishingly, the manger said while this is "not intended to be the normal process," he said that he "kind of like it" as it gave an initial opportunity to gauge the sentiment of council members.
I'm glad the manager didn't mention the sentiment of the public, as with little notice as to the content of the deal and its incentives, citizens had no meaningful opportunity to prepare.
An example of the contorted logic council members use to justify their action: Council Member Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita) explained that issuing letters of intent is a common practice in real estate deals. He confused, however, agreements made between private parties and those where government is a party. Private parties can voluntarily enter into whatever agreements they want. But agreements with government are governed by laws. Yesterday, the city council announced its intent to do something for which it is required to hold a public hearing. That didn't violate the letter of the law, but it certainly goes against its spirit and meaning. Longwell said he has no problem with that.
Their bureaucratic enablers helped out, too. Wichita Downtown Development Corporation President Jeff Fluhr, in his testimony, said we are working towards becoming a "city of distinction." That we are, indeed — a city distinguished by lack of respect for the rule of law and its disregard for citizens in favor of special interests.
A few observations from the meeting follow.
Public investment
In response to a question from the mayor, Allen Bell, Wichita's Director of Urban Development, said that the ratio of private dollars to public dollars for this project is about 2.2 to 1. Whether these numbers are correct is doubtful. It will take an analysis of the deal to determine the true numbers, and the details have been available for only a short time. But if correct, this ratio falls well short of the stated goals. Two years ago, when agitation for a new round of downtown planing started, boosters spoke of a ratio of 15 to 1. Eventually planners promised a ratio of 5 to 1 private to public investment for downtown. This project, while of course is just a single project and not the entirety of downtown development, doesn't reach half that goal.
Order of events and media coverage
During the meeting, Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) conceded that "the order of events is confusing."
Before that, Council Member Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) claimed that there had been much media coverage of the proposed hotel, and that the public was actually getting two opportunities to talk about this project. She said that the media had published information about today's meeting and the public hearing on September 13th.
Miller is gravely mistaken. Until a Wichita Eagle article on Saturday, I saw no mention of the letter of intent, and no detail of the form of subsidies to be considered for this project. The city's list of legal notices contains no mention of the action that was taken at this meeting.
Questions not answered
During my remarks to the council, I related how last year the Wichita Eagle alleged that David Burk, the managing member of this project — and I quote here: "Downtown Wichita's leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city's knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney."
This Eagle article and a companion article went on to quote these people as having trouble with and being concerned, to varying degrees, with Burk's acts: City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf; City Council member Jeff Longwell; City Council Member Lavonta Williams, now serving as vice mayor; then-Vice Mayor Jim Skelton, now on the Sedgwick County Commission; and City Manager Robert Layton.
In particular, the manager said, according to the Eagle, that anyone has the right to appeal their taxes, but he added that 'no doubt that defeats the purpose of the TIF.'"
The manager's quote is most directly damaging. Despite the fact that nearly all the property taxes Burk pays directly enriches himself and only him, he still doesn't want to pay them. And according to the Wichita Eagle — not me — he engaged in deception in order to reduce them.
None of the four people in the council chambers — Rebenstorf, Longwell, Williams, and Layton — explained their apparent change of mind with regard to Burk's acts.
Burk, who addressed the council immediately after I asked if he cared to explain his actions, decided to avoid the issue. In his shoes, I probably would have done the same, as there is no justification for the acts the Eagle accused him of doing. He, and his political and bureaucratic enablers in Wichita city hall, have to hope this issue fades.
Campaign contributions
Council member O'Donnell asked about a parking garage to be built at a cost of $6 million to the city: Will the city be putting this project out to competitive bid? Bell replied no, that is the developer's request. City attorney Rebenstorf added that there is a charter ordinance that exempts these types of projects from bidding requirements.
O'Donnell said that awarding the construction contract to a company that has made campaign contributions to all council members (except him) "seems a little questionable."
The company in question is Key Construction. Its principals regularly appear on campaign finance reports, making the maximum allowed contribution to a wide variety of candidates. Similarly, Burke and his wife also frequently make the maximum contribution to city hall candidates.
O'Donnell is correct to publicize these contributions. They emit a foul odor. In our political system, many people make contributions to candidates whose ideology they agree with, be it conservative, liberal, or something else.
But Burk and others routinely make the maximum contribution to all — or nearly all — candidates, even those with widely varying political stances. How can someone explain Burk's (and his wife's) contributions to liberals like Miller and Williams, and also to conservatives like Longwell, Meitzner, and former council member Sue Schlapp?
The answer is that Schlapp and Longwell, despite their proclamations of fiscal conservatism, have shown themselves to be willing to vote for any form of developer welfare Burk and others have asked for. They create tangled webs of tortured logic to explain their votes. Meitzner, along with his fellow new council member James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita), seems to be following the same path.
Several council members and the mayor took exception to O'Donnell's raising of this matter. Clendenin, for his part, objected and said that the public has had over 30 days to consider and take exception with this project. This contention, like Miller's, isn't supported by any facts that I am aware of. It appears that the first mention of any of the details of the plan and the subsidies is contained in a MAPC agenda that appears to have been created on July 29. Besides not being 30 days in advance, the MAPC agenda is an obscure place to release what Clendenin believes is adequate public notice.
Regarding the issue of campaign contributions, the mayor — without mentioning his name — strongly criticized O'Donnell for bringing up this matter. Many people watching this meeting felt that the extreme reaction of Brewer and others to O'Donnell's observation reveals a certain uneasiness regarding these contributions. I don't believe the mayor and council members are taking illegal bribes, although when any city is enriching people with millions of dollars of developer welfare there is always that threat, and in some cities and states such practices are commonplace.
The fact remains, however, that there is a small group of campaign contributors who — over and over — ask for and receive largess from city hall.
The mayor's criticisms
In his comments, Mayor Brewer accused opponents of providing only partial facts about matters, because the full facts did not support their case. He was referring to my remarks that a lawsuit brought against the city by a party who felt the city had reneged on a letter of intent was litigated all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court. In my remarks I didn't mention who won that case — the city did — and the mayor believes this is an example of slanting the facts.
The mayor went on to make accusations of "grandstanding" from some of the public and "some council members" because there are cameras in the council chambers. He mentioned that news media are present at every meeting and that council meetings are broadcast on television.
The mayor should take notice, however, that most people who care about public affairs and policy are severely disappointed with news media coverage of city hall events. The resources of news gathering agencies, especially newspapers, are severely depleted as compared to the past. In my coverage of a talk given by former Wichita Eagle editor Davis Merritt, I wrote this: "A question that I asked is whether the declining resources of the Wichita Eagle might create the danger that local government officials feel they can act under less scrutiny, or is this already happening? Merritt replied that this has been going on for some time. 'The watchdog job of journalism is incredibly important and is terribly threatened.' When all resources go to cover what must be covered — police, accidents, etc. — there isn't anything left over to cover what should be covered. There are many important stories that aren't being covered because the 'boots aren't on the street anymore,' he said." See Former Wichita Eagle editor addresses journalism, democracy, May 11, 2009.
In addition, Bill Wilson, the reporter the Wichita Eagle sent to cover the meeting, has a documented bias against the concept of free markets, and against those who believe in them.
The mayor, when delivering his criticism, does not use the names of those he criticizes. It would be useful if he did, but it would mean he has to take greater accountability for his remarks.
Following are links to excerpts of testimony from the meeting — perhaps examples of the "grandstanding" the mayor complained about: John Todd, Shirley Koehn, and Bob Weeks.
Wichita Eagle editorial page: arm of Democratic Party?
Today's letters section of the Wichita Eagle carries a letter from the executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party promoting an event that will poke fun at Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
A letter to the editor of any newspaper that discusses public policy, including Kobach's agenda, is relevant. But this letter is a promotion — an advertisement — for a partisan political party event. It's not billed as a fundraiser, but it has all the characteristics of one, including tickets selling for as much as $100.
Printing letters like this harms the image of Eagle, if it wishes to retain credibility as a neutral arbitrator of public opinion and policy.
Wichita Eagle endorsements out of step with Wichita
Yesterday's primary election for Wichita city and school board races revealed a Wichita Eagle editorial board increasingly out of step with voters, who followed several of the board's recommendations but also voted strongly against several Eagle-endorsed candidates. It's not the first time this has happened.
The endorsements are not the Eagle's prediction of who will win, but instead are "recommendations as information to consider as you make up your own minds about the candidates."
For the race for Wichita mayor, voters strongly followed the Eagle's endorsement of incumbent Carl Brewer. That contest attracted several challengers, but none with the stature to raise the money necessary to seriously challenge an incumbent in a city-wide election.
For city council district 2, the Eagle editorial board strongly endorsed Steve Harris, calling him "best choice by far." Pete Meitzner was mentioned as a credible candidate. But the winner of the election was Charlie Stevens, who the Eagle dismissed as an also-ran. The Eagle's recommended candidate Harris finished in third place behind Meitzner, although the margin is small at 1,302 votes to 1,292 votes.
For city council district 3, the editorial board recommended James Clendenin, and he won. Its second choice of Hoyt Hillman finished in third place behind Mark Geitzen, who will advance to the general election with Clendenin. Geitzen, too, was characterized by the Eagle as an also-ran.
In city council district 4, the Eagle named June Bailey the "standout candidate." She finished in third place behind Joshua Blick and Michael O'Donnell, the latter placed by the Eagle in the also-ran category.
For the at-large seat for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, the Eagle recommend Sheril Logan, and she won.
A distinguishing feature of the candidates the Eagle endorsed for city offices is their support for government intervention in the local economy through the use of economic development incentives and outright subsidy. (But always to be used prudently, of course, with scrutiny and discretion.) In particular, district 2 council candidate Harris embraced government intervention and was endorsed by several of Wichita's most prominent crony capitalists. Other candidates like Clendenin and Bailey look favorably on big government, too.
While Clendenin won in his district, voters preferred other candidates to Harris and Bailey. In particular, Stevens in district 2, Gietzen in district 3, and O'Donnell in district 4 have an explicit free-market perspective in their messages. The Wichita Eagle editorial board believes in all things opposite — crony capitalism, large-scale interventionism in the name of social engineering, and reliance on government rather than free people to solve problems and create prosperity — so it's no surprise the names of these three candidates and their positions were buried. The Eagle's political and economic preferences, however, are increasingly out of step with what Wichita voters want.
Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday February 18, 2011
Wichita-area legislators to meet public. Tomorrow members of the South-Central Kansas Legislative Delegation will meet with the public. Tomorrow's meeting is in the Sunflower Room of the Sedgwick County Extension Education Center, 21st and Tyler Rd, at 9:00 am. Generally these meetings last for two hours. The first of these meetings, two weeks ago, was focused more on hearing the concerns of citizens rather than allowing legislators to speak a lot. … Two other meetings have been scheduled. One is on March 19th — right before the legislature adjourns for its break — at Derby City Hall, 611 Mulberry Road. Then on April 23 — right before the "wrap-up session" — at the Wichita State University Hughes Metropolitan Complex, 5015 E. 29th Street (at Oliver).
This Week in Kansas. On This Week in Kansas Joe Aistrup of Kansas State University and co-author of of the new book on Kansas politics Kansas Politics and Government: The Clash of Political Cultures, Richard Schrock of Emporia State University and Education Frontlines, and myself join host Tim Brown to discuss immigration and abortion bills in Kansas, concealed carry on college campus, and public schools medicating students. This Week in Kansas airs on KAKE-TV channel 10 at 9:00 am Sunday.
Mandatory union political spending questioned. From Derrick Sontag of Americans for Prosperity, Kansas: "It was Thomas Jefferson who said, 'To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.' On that note the Kansas Legislature is considering House Bill 2130, commonly referred to as 'paycheck protection.' Money derived from public employee union membership dues, for example, is often spent on functions outside of bargaining and administrative activity. That's certainly the prerogative of a union but the problem is in some instances members may not choose to support union political activity, yet their money is going towards just that. … This is not a bill designed to eliminate unions. Rather it provides workers the ability to protect themselves from financially supporting political candidates they otherwise wouldn't support. The unions that effectively present their case as to why political activity should occur will more than likely earn the financial support of a number of its members. Members of public employee unions should have the right to fully safeguard against their money being spent on political causes and candidates they don't support."
Tom Woods: Rollback. This week I traveled to Kansas State University to attend a lecture by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.. His topic, mostly, was his new book Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse. Of the book, Woods explains: "The book does two things. First, it lays bare the true fiscal position of the U.S. government, and shows why some kind of default is not merely possible but inevitable. … By far the more central part of the book is this: the critical first step for reversing this mess and checking the seemingly unstoppable federal advance is to stick a dagger through the heart of the myths by which government has secured the confidence and consent of the people. We know these myths by heart. Government acts on behalf of the public good. It keeps us safe. It protects us against monopolies. It provides indispensable services we could not provide for ourselves. Without it, America would be populated by illiterates, half of us would be dead from quack medicine or exploding consumer products, and the other half would lead a feudal existence under the iron fist of private firms that worked them to the bone for a dollar a week. Thus Americans tolerate much government predation because they have bought into the myth that state intervention may be an irritant, but the alternative of a free society would be far worse."
$100 million in cuts. It's two years old, but this video places a proposal by President Barack Obama to cut $100 million from the federal budget in context. As the video explains, the scale of numbers so large — millions, billions, trillions — are often difficult to grasp. … Currently some Republicans in Congress are trying to cut $100 billion (1,000 times as much) from the federal budget, and it's a difficult process. Even a cut of this size is not enough. As Tom Woods recently wrote in Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse: "America is staring default in the face, and the boldest proposal we hear is for trimming $100 billion. That's like taking three dollars off a trip to the moon."
Brownback plan ignored in Wichita. At this week's meeting of the Wichita City Council I explained to council members a few points of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's economic development plan and how several actions the council was considering were directly in opposition to that plan. No council member asked a question. No Wichita news media reported on how the council ignored the governor's plan. Especially troubling is how the Wichita Eagle had two reporters attending the meeting, yet there was no mention in that newspaper as to how the council voted several times against the principles of the Brownback plan. … Especially puzzling are the votes of Sue Schlapp, who held a leadership role in the Brownback campaign. Video and more is here.
National League of Cities junket defended. Speaking of Schlapp and other city council members, the Wichita Eagle printed a letter from the Executive Director of the National League of Cities defending the value of the conference for city council members. Fair enough. But the problem is that Wichita is sending council members to the conference who will serve less than one month after the conference. These council members — Sue Schlapp, Paul Gray, and Roger Smith — ought to refrain from spending taxpayer money on this trip, which is a junket for lame ducks.
Wichita Eagle quality control could use improvement
When presented with evidence of errors in its stories, the Wichita Eagle, Kansas' largest newspaper, is not being responsive in correcting its errors.
On July 12, the Eagle ran the story 84th District race a repeat for 2 candidates, highlighting the two Democratic Party candidates for a Kansas House of Representatives district. The article said there was no Republican filer, when in fact Dan Heflin had filed as a Republican. This could be seen clearly at either the Kansas Secretary of State's listing of candidates, or at the Sedgwick County Election Office's listing.
The article was written by "courtney looney," a name I wasn't familiar with at the Eagle. I couldn't find an email address or telephone number, so I couldn't contact the reporter directly. I, and one other person, left a comment to the story calling attention to the error. As of today, the error is still in the story. I couldn't find evidence of a correction.
In another example, on August 10 the Wichita Eagle printed the story Kansas' justice-selection process unique, in which the reporter wrote: "Changing the constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and approval of the governor. Then the issue goes to voters during a general election."
The process is described correctly except for the role of the governor. Unlike regular legislation, the governor does not sign or approve a constitutional amendment. The only parties involved are the legislature and the people voting on the amendment in an election.
In this case, I knew the identity of the reporter, so I sent an email message about this error. A comment writer called attention to the error, too. I never got a response, and the story still appears on the Wichita Eagle website with the error intact. Finally, on August 17 the Eagle printed a correction.
The story was printed in the Lawrence Journal-World under an Associated Press byline, and the error was there, too. The story may have been printed in other newspapers.
For a final example, on August 11 the Eagle printed the story Wichita City Council OKs tax districts, in which the reporter wrote: "The approval means the hotel can charge an extra cent or two of sales tax for up to 22 years, with the revenue rebated to them after the state and city remove 7 percent in administrative fees. That will mean about $9.6 million in revenue from the extra sales tax for the $12 million hotel."
John Todd, a friend of mine with an interest in this issue, called me and asked me if it was true that the extra sales tax this hotel can charge through the Kansas Community Improvement District program would be worth $9.6 million over 22 years as reported. I said no, the CID is just one part of a package of subsidies the city created for this project, with the total package being worth $9.6 million or thereabouts. The total package is reported on at Waterwalk hotel deal breaks new ground for Wichita subsidies.
A simple back-of-the-napkin calculation can confirm this, using publicly available sources of data: The hotel may have up to 130 rooms. A study commissioned by the city regarding this hotel found that "In 2008, the proposed Fairfield Inn's competitive set's average daily rate was $86.31." In January, Goody Clancy, the firm planning the revitalization of downtown Wichita, said that Wichita hotels are doing well with an occupancy rate of about 67 percent, with a companion chart showing downtown hotels at about 70 percent.
Doing the arithmetic (130 rooms times $86.31 daily rate times 365 days per year times 70 percent occupancy factor times two percent CID tax rate) results in about $57,336 in revenue per year from the CID tax. Or over the 22 year life of the CID, about $1.3 million. It's possible the hotel might generate additional CID revenue through sales of drinks or other incidentals, but this would likely be a small amount.
Even if one disputes the assumptions and substitutes a higher room rate or occupancy factor, there's no way the CID will come close to generating the revenue the Eagle article reports.
Todd called the reporter, and the reporter was insistent that the reported figures are correct, saying he received them from Wichita economic development director Allen Bell. I think this means we shouldn't expect a correction.
It's part of human nature to make mistakes. I do, and when I do, often I get an email from someone at the Wichita Eagle notifying me of such. When I realize I have made a mistake, I correct it, as can be seen in this example.
But the Wichita Eagle isn't doing the same in a timely manner, and sometimes not at all.
It's not as though I'm disagreeing with opinions presented in editorials on the opinion page (and people in Wichita have enough trouble with those). The problems here are with facts that can easily be verified. In particular, when the Eagle mistakenly reports the governor's role in amending the constitution, and then doesn't quickly issue a correction and leaves the erroneous story on its website, I think we have a problem.
Anderson, former Congressional candidate, to host Wichita radio show
Today former candidate for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas Jim Anderson announces that he will host a weekly talk radio program in Wichita.
The show, titled "The Jim Anderson Program" will air on Saturday afternoons from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm on KNSS radio, 1330 AM.
This is a step forward for Wichita, as it is one of the largest cities without local talk radio that focuses on public affairs. Following is the press release from KNSS:
WICHITA, KS — Entercom Radio Wichita is proud to announce the formation of South Central Kansas' newest live and local talk radio show, "The Jim Anderson Program", which will debut on Saturday, August 21st, from 1-3pm on NewsRadio 1330 KNSS.
Former 4th district Republican congressional candidate, Constitutional Conservative, and small business owner, Jim Anderson, will host this live and local talk show program that will address wide-ranging issues from politics, culture, history, current events, and discussing their implications on the local, national and international scene. The program promises to be a no holds-barred and nonpartisan mouthpiece as well as demand accountability and seek truth. "We are going to hold people's feet to the fire," Anderson stated. He continued, "for too long, we the people have been to blame for not holding our local, state, and national representatives accountable, it is and has been our fault. My goal is to provide a voice and a platform so regular citizens, like myself, can do just that with the powerful and influential who have forgotten that power is derived from the consent of the governed".
"It is our hope that Jim's passion, fire, and genuineness will create a program that people can't miss, a program where they have a voice, and one that is not too far away to interact or gain attention of," says KNSS Program Director, Tony Duesing.
The Jim Anderson Radio Program can be heard every Saturday, from 1-3pm on NewsRadio 1330 KNSS.
Wichita Eagle editorial endorsements: helpful, or not?
Yesterday's primary election in Kansas provided a measure of the influence of the Wichita Eagle editorial board. Voters ignored many of its endorsements, indicating that the newspaper — its editorial side, at least — is increasingly out of touch with its readers.
Starting from the top, here's how the Eagle endorsed and what the voters did. An endorsement is a recommendation to voters, and not intended to be a prediction of the outcome.
For the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, the Eagle endorsed Jerry Moran. He won. For the Democratic Party side of this race, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator David Haley. He finished in third place.
For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the Kansas first district, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator Jim Barnett, noting his "balanced legislative record." The Eagle dismissed challenger Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp, calling him a "hard-right conservative with a hard edge." This race was in a three-way tie in the last poll, but voters chose Huelskamp with 35 percent of the vote to Barnett's 25 percent and Tracey Mann's 21 percent.
(There is a pattern here. According to the Eagle editorial board, conservatives are "hard," while liberals are portrayed as soft and cuddly — or "balanced" and "nuanced," at least.)
For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. This had the potential to be a close race, with some polls — her own, mostly — showing Schodorf in the lead. But the race turned out to be not close, with Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo gathering 39 percent of the vote to Schodorf's 24 percent and Wichita businessman Wink Hartman's 23 percent.
On the Democratic side, the Eagle endorsed Kansas Representative Raj Goyle, and he won handily over a little-known and inexperienced challenger with no experience in elective office.
For the Republican party nomination for Kansas Governor, the Eagle endorsed Sam Brownback, whose only competition was from a candidate with some very peculiar beliefs. Brownback won handily.
For Kansas Secretary of State Democratic Party nomination, the Eagle backed appointed incumbent Chris Biggs over opponent Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, who the Eagle faintly praised for his "out-of-the-box thinking and independence." Biggs won.
On the Republican side, the Eagle endorsed career bureaucrat Elizabeth Ensley over Kris Kobach. The Eagle — Rhonda Holman, mostly — has criticized Kobach steadily on the editorial page for his contention that voter fraud is a problem in Kansas. Voters overwhelmingly chose Kobach. He got 51 percent of the vote to Ensley's 27 percent.
For Republican Party nomination for Attorney General, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Derek Schmidt, and he won handily over the capable but little-known Ralph De Zago.
For Republican Party nomination for insurance commissioner, the Eagle chose incumbent Sandy Praeger, and she easily won.
Sedgwick County Commission voters ignored Eagle recommendations
In primary contests for Sedgwick County Commission, voters didn't give much weight to Wichita Eagle endorsements.
In the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for District 1, Eagle-endorsed Betty Arnold won. She'll face unopposed incumbent Dave Unruh in the general election in this heavily Republican district.
In District 4, two Republicans ran to replace Kelly Parks, who chose not to seek re-election. The Eagle endorsed Lucy Burtnett, who served two years in this position when she was appointed by the precinct committee system to replace Carolyn McGinn, who won election to the Kansas Senate. When Burtnett ran for election to that position in 2006, she did not win. Instead of backing the Republican primary winner, she ran a write-in campaign that had the potential to contribute to a possible Republican loss.
Despite her loss in 2006, the Eagle endorsed her over Richard Ranzau, praising her "thoughtful" voting record, which I — after looking at her past votes — characterized as thoughtless. Ranzau won with 55 percent of the vote to Burtnett's 44 percent. She told the Wichita Eagle that she will not support Ranzau in the general election, which naturally leads to speculation as to whether she'll run another write-in campaign.
For the Democratic party nomination for the position, the Eagle endorsed former Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey. From the council bench, Fearey had blasted the Eagle for uncovering problems with a real estate developer's past dealings, blocking passage of a project she supported. Besides the editorial board endorsement, the Eagle also ran a last-minute news story embarrassing to her opponent, Kansas Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau. As of now, Faust-Goudeau has won by a margin of 60 votes out of 3,450 cast.
In District 5, the Eagle endorsed Chuck Warren in a three-way race for the Republican Party nomination. Wichita city council member Jim Skelton won with 42 percent of the vote to Warren's 36 percent.
Kansas House of Representatives endorsements
In an open seat in the Kansas House of Representatives, the Eagle endorsed Jim Howell for the 82nd district, which is primarily the city of Derby. He won.
In the Republican party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 83, parts of east Wichita, veteran legislator Jo Ann Pottorff faced a challenge from the right in recent college graduate Kyle Amos. Pottorff had to run a last-minute ad in the Eagle attempting to burnish her conservative credentials. She won with 53 percent of the vote. This qualifies as a squeaker.
In Kansas House of Representatives district 94, parts of west Wichita, the Eagle chose to endorse a challenger to incumbent Joe McLeland in the Republican primary. The Eagle criticized him as a "yes-man for GOP leadership and anti-tax think tanks" and said he "parroted misleading information about school budgets during the past session." McLeland won with 63 percent of the vote. His two challengers received 22 percent and 16 percent.
In the Republican Party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 96, parts of south Wichita, the Eagle endorsed first-term incumbent Phil Hermanson, and he won.
The Eagle recommended that voters chose incumbent Gail Finney in the Democratic Party primary for the 84th district, and she won by a large margin.
For election results from races in Sedgwick County, click on August 3rd, 2010 Primary Election Unofficial Results — Sedgwick County. For statewide races and other races, click on 2010 unofficial primary election results at Kansas Secretary of State.
Wichita Eagle endorsements deserve scrutiny
The Wichita Eagle editorial board has made its endorsements for offices in the August 3rd Kansas primary election. Before voters decide whether to rely on these recommendations, they deserve some examination.
For example, for the Kansas House of Representatives the Eagle endorsed incumbent Republican representative Jo Ann Pottorff for her "balanced voting record." The Eagle said she was willing to stand apart from the area's "hard-line conservatives."
But an examination of Pottorff's voting record indicates something other than balance. This year, on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index (a project of this site), her score was 13 percent. That placed her in the tenth percentile of members of the Kansas House on a scale that rewards fiscally conservative votes. It's a liberal voting record, in other words. We might even say a "hard-line liberal" voting record.
(If the Eagle was to criticize a liberal, however, it would probably use the softer and preferred term "progressive." Even liberals try to hide their lineage.)
Other examples of language that reveals the Wichita Eagle's bias is in their endorsement of an opponent to current representative Joe McLeland. In its endorsement, the Eagle editorial board wrote: "Unfortunately, he also seemed at times to be a yes-man for GOP leadership and anti-tax think tanks. It was particularly disappointing how McLeland, the chairman of the House Education Budget Committee, parroted misleading information about school budgets during the past session."
Why didn't the Eagle write this about Pottorff: "Unfortunately, she seemed to be a yes-woman for the governor and the anti-economic freedom, big-spending teachers union leadership and school spending advocacy groups"?
Regarding McLeland, the Eagle is probably referring to the controversy about unspent school fund balances. The Eagle, along with the teachers union and other school spending lobbies, didn't believe that these balances existed and wrote so in several opinion pieces. The Eagle probably still doesn't believe these funds exist, notwithstanding the fact that the schools spent the very same fund balances they said didn't exist and couldn't be spent: "By using fund balances, schools in Kansas were able to increase spending by an estimated $320 million in the current school year. Revenue to Kansas school districts declined by about $50 million, but $370 in fund balances were used to boost total spending by $320 million."
So when the Eagle makes an endorsement based on a factually unsound position, what should voters do?
In the Republican party primary for Sedgwick County Commission District 4, the Eagle chose Lucy Burtnett over Richard Ranzau, praising Burtnett's "thoughtful voting record" during her two years as an appointed commissioner.
In 2006, while campaigning for this same position, Burtnett was reported by the Wichita Eagle to have this reaction to a proposed Sedgwick County property tax increase: "Lucy Burtnett, the current 4th District county commissioner, told 30 people attending a candidate forum at the Northeast Senior Center that none of the commissioners find the increase acceptable." Part of the purpose of the proposed tax increase was to fund a jail expansion.
After losing the primary election, Burtnett voted in favor of a tax increase that was somewhat smaller than what the county manager originally proposed. Its purpose, partially, was to fund a jail expansion.
Two years later — realizing the jail expansion wasn't necessary after all — the county rolled back part of the tax increase that Burtnett voted for.
"Thoughtful" voting record, as the Eagle endorsement said? Or thoughtless?
For Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.
Describing her as "not overly ideological or partisan," the Eagle again overlooks facts.
Webster's dictionary gives one definition of ideology as "the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program." The Eagle uses this term with a dark connotation, implying that candidates with ideologies are inflexible and unwilling to consider anything other than their own views. Other liberal media outlets use this term in the same way.
But ideologies cut both ways. And Schodorf hasn't seen many school spending programs and accompanying taxes that she won't vote for. This is in spite of evidence that schools had money they weren't spending, and that all the spending hasn't done much to improve student outcomes. (The Eagle and Schodorf would have to look beyond the fraudulent Kansas state assessment scores to see that.)
The view of Schodorf and the Wichita Eagle editorial board is that Kansas public schools are always underfunded, and schools can be fixed only with more money. That's an ideology, and one that is demonstrably harmful to Kansas schoolchildren.
This is all the more striking when we consider that Schodorf is chair of the Senate Education Committee. She has been in one of the most powerful positions to do something for Kansas schoolchildren, but she has not done that. So when the Eagle praises her for being "a pragmatist who cares about finding real solutions, not scoring political points," consider that Kansas has few of the reforms such as charter schools and school choice that are working in other states. These are "real solutions" that the Eagle doesn't favor. Instead, Schodorf seeks favor and campaign contributions from the teachers union and school spending lobby, earning the "political points" the Eagle editorial board purportedly condemns.
As for not being partisan, Schodorf simply belongs to the wrong party, if we are to believe that the Republican Party is home to conservative thought and practice. Schodorf's voting record this year is more liberal — considering the same bills — than that of the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for this position.
It's pretty easy to appear non-partisan when your party label is wrong.
It's hard to tell, but it appears that the Eagle editorial board gave extra consideration to its Schodorf endorsement because she didn't run a negative campaign. Regarding Mike Pompeo, the Eagle wrote, after listing his credentials, "It's too bad he ran such an ugly campaign."
That "ugly campaign," however, can be viewed as simply responding to the allegations and charges made by another candidate. He didn't attack Schodorf — perhaps he should have — so she, as well as the other candidates, didn't have to defend themselves.
Wichita Eagle voter guide available
For the voter guide for the November 2012 elections, click here.
The Wichita Eagle's voter guide is now available online.
This guide may be used in two ways: you can enter your address, and the system will show you information about the candidates that will appear on your ballot. Or, you can browse all the races and candidates.
If you use the voter guide by entering your address, you'll be presented with all the candidates for each office that will appear on your ballot. For each office, you can view information about the candidates, and you can optionally indicate who you intend to vote for. At the end of the process, you can print a ballot — with your selections marked — to take with you to the polls. Or, the system will email it to you.
The information in this guide is provided by the candidates (except for a brief description of each office), and there is no editorial comment. Some of this information will probably appear in a printed version of the newspaper, but not for contests like precinct committeeman and committeewoman.
In my article Wichita city hall silent on handling of ethics issue, I made a mistake in stating that a ready-to-print story was canceled by Wichita Eagle newsroom management. Eagle editor Sherry Chisenhall informs me that the newspaper did perform research as I reported, but the matter never advanced to a story that was ready for publication. Therefore, there was no story to "squash," as I reported.
I regret this error and apologize to the newspaper.
The issue remains that the Eagle newsroom is fully aware of the situation and decided to mention it only as a small part of a larger story, as my article explains. The Eagle editorial page is still silent on this issue.
Tea party impact to be topic of panel
This Friday the Wichita Pachyderm Club features a panel discussion with panelists Susan Estes, Lynda Tyler, and Dion Lefler discussing the topic "What is the political impact, if any, of the Tea Party movement?" Estes is Field Director for Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, Tyler is head of Kansans for Liberty and organizer of the last two tea party events in Wichita, and Lefler is a Wichita Eagle reporter who covers politics at several levels.
All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it's recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.
The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.
Fake stimulus exposed by Watchdog group
There's a new dog in town, and doing a great job already.
In New Mexico, the New Mexico Watchdog reported the story More Than 4,800 New Jobs Created in New Mexico in Less than a Month from Stimulus, According to Obama Administration Data, which is apparently the first news story to notice the glaring errors — some say fraud — in stimulus data provided by the government website Recovery.gov.
The national Watchdog site then reported $6.4 Billion Stimulus Goes to Phantom Districts.
Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity. There are state-level watchdogs in a growing number of states, including Kansas at Kansas Watchdog. The Kansas group has done some great work already, to the annoyance of some Kansas politicians and bureaucrats who prefer to operate under less scrutiny. It's worthwhile to bookmark the Kansas Watchdog web site, and to subscribe to their various other contact methods such as their rss feed, Facebook presence, email updates, and Twitter stream.
KSN news director meets with critics
On Saturday October 17, 2009, about 50 Wichitans met in front of Wichita's KSN Television studio to express their concerns about the state of news media. The event was part of a national protest named "Can you hear us now?" Locally, the South Central Kansas 9.12 Group promoted the event.
Jason Kravarik, KSN News Director addressed the group. The crowd was contentious at first, but after emotions cooled a bit, a more constructive dialog emerged.
Kravarik stressed that KSN is a local news organization. It is affiliated with NBC News, but KSN employees are not employees of NBC. The focus of KSN is local news, not national. When national news stories appear on KSN, they're furnished by NBC.
Someone in the crowd asked: "Why don't you correct the national news?"
Kravarik replied that KSN covers national news as it affects Wichita. KSN can't send reporters to Washington.
The crowd was critical of KSN's news coverage of the Wichita tea parties. It's possible that KSN may have broadcast a mistake when counting the number of attendees in its coverage of one of the tea parties. But by and large, KSN has covered the Wichita tea parties. As Kravarik mentioned, this website (WichitaLiberty.org) holds several references to KSN's coverage. (See Wichita tax day tea party preview on KSN news and Wichita Tea Party News Coverage on KSN Television for examples.)
He also told the group that KSN provides no opinion or commentary, just coverage of local new stories.
One complaint from the audience was that KSN doesn't provide advance notice of events like tea parties. Kravarik recommended that groups contact the station to make sure that reporters know of the event, and make contact well in advance of the date of the event — not just the day before.
(If I had been in Kravarik's position, I might have said that local television news stations shouldn't serve as advertising services for anyone.)
There was also mention of cable television news networks. Kravarik told the audience that based on the ratings success of Fox News with shows like The O'Reilly Factor, MSNBC decided to counter with their own opinion-based shows like Keith Olbermann's.
One speaker requested time for local exploration of national issues and how they will affect us locally in Wichita and the surrounding area.
Kravarik also mentioned that when local people do things with national impact, that's something his station is interested in. But reporters need to be notified of such things.
One audience member said "The print media is useless, because people might see it, but it doesn't register. You guys put stuff on the actual news on the television. People look at that television and take it as gospel, as bad as it is."
Kravarik also mentioned that as events such as tea parties are repeated, they become less newsworthy: "By the time there's a hundred of these, will they get as much coverage as day two, three, and four?"
He urged the group to get specific with its issues. Are there local people who are being negatively affected by a policy? Then it moves from the abstract to the concrete. It then becomes a new story idea.
In response to a question about the economics of news, Kravarik mentioned that his station is struggling, as are all stations, due to loss of advertising revenue.
While the protesters complained that the issues they're concerned about are not being covered, somehow the members of the group are informed about them. So the news must be getting out somehow. I believe this points to the diversity of news sources available today, largely due to the Internet.
Some of the protesters were complaining to the wrong person. One person complained about the reporting of the count of protesters at the September 12 protest event in Washington. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, Kravarik's news station didn't cover that event.
The plea for attention is understandable. But if KSN gives more attention to issues and events that are important to the protesters, we would expect other interest groups to insist on increased coverage of their issues.
The criticism of print media by one person is mistaken, I believe. One of the important differences between print journalism and television journalism is breadth and depth of coverage. Print media — Internet too — has the space to cover issues in depth. The daily television news broadcast doesn't.
Some people asked why doesn't local news media explain issues like the "Fair Tax" or the Federal Reserve system. This is more like educational programming, which network television has rarely embraced, as it doesn't produce ratings. Public television is more likely to provide this type of programming. An important advance in just the past year or two is the rise of Internet video services like YouTube, which contains many educational videos.
There's also the issue of "What is the truth?" While I am largely sympathetic with the political views of the protesters at this event, there are other groups that are just as firmly convinced that their version of the world is the truth.
Perception, too, plays a large role in opinion of news coverage. The Wall Street Journal has a reputation as a bastion of conservatism. But a UCLA study in 2005 found that "the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times."
As an example of how truth and perception can vary from person to person, I would be happy to make any readers a DVD of the video I captured of this event, on the condition that they write their own news coverage or commentary. (Or maybe create video or audio coverage and commentary.) I'll then post it here.