Open records, rights of Kansans disrespected at Wichita City Council


Yesterday the Wichita City Council decided to issue another contract to Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. I appeared to recommend that the council not issue this contract until an issue regarding the Kansas Open Records Act is resolved. Explanation of why Go Wichita should be considered a “public agency” and comply with records requests is found in Wichita open records issue buried.

A few notes from the meeting (video may be viewed here or at the end of this article):

Discussion of this matter at the meeting reveals that city staff believes that the annual reports filed by Go Wichita along with periodic checks by city staff are sufficient oversight.

City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf cited the law regarding enforcement of the Kansas Open Records Act, stating that the Kansas Attorney General or the courts is the next step to seek enforcement of KORA. While Rebenstorf is correct on the law, the policy of the Kansas Attorney General is to refer all cases to the local district attorney. The Kansas AG will not intervene in this matter.

Randy Brown, who is chair of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government and former opinion page editor of the Wichita Eagle was at the meeting and spoke on this matter. In his remarks, Brown said “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.”

Brown said that he’s amazed when public officials don’t realize that transparency helps build trust in government, thereby helping public officials themselves. He added “Open government is essential to a democracy. It’s the only way citizens know what’s going on. … But the Kansas Open Records Act is clear: Public records are to be made public, and that law is to be construed liberally, not by some facile legal arguments that keep these records secret.”

He recommended to the council, as I did, that the contract be contingent on Go Wichita following the Kansas Open Records Act.

John Rolfe, president of Go Wichita, told the council that he has offered to provide me “any information that is relevant” regarding Go Wichita. He mentioned the various financial reports his organization provides. He said he is unclear on the transparency question, and what isn’t transparent.

Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) asked Rolfe if he had ever denied a KORA request. Rolfe replied no, perhaps not remembering that Go Wichita denied my request.

Misunderstanding the scope of KORA

In remarks from the bench James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita) asked the city manager a series of questions aimed at determining whether the city was satisfied with the level of service that Go Wichita has provided. He then extended that argument, wondering if any company the city contracts with that is providing satisfactory products or service would be subject to “government intrusion” through records requests. Would this discourage companies from wanting to be contractors?

First, the Kansas Open Records Act does not say anything about whether a company is providing satisfactory service to government. That simply isn’t a factor, and is not a basis for my records request to Go Wichita. Additionally, the Kansas Open Records Act contains a large exception, which excepts: “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.” So companies that sell to government in the ordinary course of business are not subject to the open records law. Go Wichita is distinguished, since it is almost entirely funded by taxes and has, I believe, just a single client: the City of Wichita.

Finally, we should note that the open records law does not represent government intrusion, as Clendenin claimed. Open records laws offer citizens the ability to get an inside look at the working of government. That’s oversight, not intrusion.

Is the city overwhelmed with records requests?

Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) asked that there might be a workshop to develop a policy on records requests. He expressed concern that departments might be overwhelmed with requests from me that they have to respond to in a timely fashion, accusing me of “attempt to bury any of our departments in freedom of information acts [sic].”

In making this argument, Mr. Meitzner might have taken the time to learn how many records requests I’ve made to the city. The answer, to the best of my recollection, is that I have made no requests this year to the city citing the open records act. I have made perhaps a half-dozen informal requests, most of which I believe were fulfilled consuming just a few moments of someone’s time.

As to his concern over the costs of fulfilling records requests: The law allows for government and agencies to charge fees to fulfill requests. They often do this, and I have paid these fees. But more important than this, the attitude of council member Meitzner is troubling. Government should be responsive to citizens. As Randy Brown told the council, government should welcome opportunities to share information and be open and transparent.

As for a workshop for city council on the topic of open records: This would probably be presented by Rebenstorf, and his attitude towards the open records law is known, and is not on the side of citizens.

O’Donnell made a motion that the contract be approved, but amended that Go Wichita will comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. That motion didn’t receive a second.

Wichita’s attitude towards citizens

Randy Brown’s remarks are an excellent summation of the morality and politics of the city’s action and attitude regarding this matter.

The council ought to be wary of taking legal advice from city attorney Gary Rebenstorf. He has been wrong several times before when issuing guidance to this council regarding the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which is similar to the Open Records Act. He’s taken the blame and apologized for these violations. He was quoted in the Wichita Eagle as saying “I will make every effort to further a culture of openness and ensure that like mistakes are avoided in the future.”

But Rebenstorf’s attitude, as gauged accurately by Randy Brown, is to rely on facile legal arguments to avoid complying with the clear meaning and intent of the law.

Why city council members — except for Michael O’Donnell — would be opposed to what I have asked is unknown. Perhaps they know that among the public, issues relating to open records generally aren’t that important. Citizens ought to note the actions of Mayor Carl Brewer. The mayor could easily put this matter to an end. He speaks of wanting to have open and transparent government, but when it comes time to make a tough call, his leadership is missing.

It’s becoming evident that Kansans need a better way to enforce compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act. It seems quite strange that local district attorneys are placed in a quasi-judicial role of deciding whether citizen complains are justified. If citizens disagree — and nearly everyone I’ve talked to thinks that the opinion issued by the Sedgwick County District Attorney is this matter is nonsensical and contrary to the letter and spirit of the law — they find themselves in the position of suing their government.

Suing your government is costly. Citizens will realize their own taxpayer dollars are used against them.


5 responses to “Open records, rights of Kansans disrespected at Wichita City Council”

  1. Jeff

    Randy Brown has been a fighter for the rights of the people to have open government for over 30 years and this Council could not have cared less.

    Liberal Democrat Mayor Brewer has taken a page from Obama say one thing and do the complete opposite.
    Republican Council member Clendenin has drank about half of the Kool Aid glass, but is rapidly becoming stupid.
    Council member Meitzner has drank the liberal Kool Aid and has asked for seconds. Meitzner is arrogant, and knows enough to be dangerous. O’Donnell is making the rest of the Council look imbecile and a bunch of junket-taking clowns. After the AFP successful tax vote, let’s do a recall of some of the Council members. Some are worried and have already asked the City Attorney about the rules for recalls.

  2. Anonymous

    Jeff, up to three council members (including mayor) can be recalled at one time…

  3. Speaking of the AG

    Our current AG is the worst I have ever seen in terms of open meetings and open records. It is a tragedy that AG Derek Schmidt is the officer charged with overseeing KORA/KOMA in Kansas. His office and its operations are so shuttered, his employees are vampire pale from never seeing the daylight. So, it’s ridiculous to expect their assistance in letting the sun shine on other government entities.

  4. Listen Up Wichita

    The Kansas Open Records Act,(KORA) is just that. From I saw during this meeting I saw a Director of a Public Service Program (GO Wichita) deny he was in violation of the Act. And City Council members save one(1), completely dumb founded in the contents of the Statute, and intent of the meaning of the Act itself! Wichita, those folks sitting up ther on that bench are clueless ideologes whose egos are the elephant in the room! I would encourage the Wichita City Council members and the Mayor to go back to 7th grade government class and study, study, study, as it’s apparent they don’t understand the basic fundementals of Law, but are more interested in cashing in on thier re-election base!
    For the Kansas Open Records Act go here –
    aka K.S.A. 45-215 et seq
    “Merry Christmas All”
    GOD Bless

  5. Westie

    Elected officials have the advantage of the last word. Government staff has the information advantage. The citizens only get the bill to pay for it all.

    It is sad to see the open meetings and records act provisions being largely ignored. However, the city council has done this repeatedly and most vividly when it violated this statute by improperly voting for a new vice mayor, I think it was then councilman Skelton, a couple of years ago.

    Some things never change.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.