Voice For Liberty

Tag: Featured

  • Lawrence school funding and employment

    Lawrence school funding and employment

    A Kansas school board president complains about funding, but the district has been able to grow employment faster than enrollment.

    A newspaper article features the Lawrence school board president complaining about school funding. (Advocates rally for school funding amid competing claims about cuts, March 14 Lawrence Journal World)

    There are competing claims. Some look at total spending. Others, as noted in the article, say analysis of spending must be nuanced by consideration of “special education, retirement fund contributions and aid for special budget funds such as bond and interest funds and capital outlay.”

    The same article also notes: “But because lawmakers converted school funding to a block grant system last year, combining several different kinds of aid into a single grant, exact comparisons to previous years are difficult to make.”

    All this is true to some extent. But there is a way to clear some of the fog, and that is to look at the number of employees in a school district compared to the number of students.

    Schools tell us that their largest expenditure is on personnel costs. Across the country, the portion of current expenditures going to salaries and benefits hovers around 80 percent. 1

    So looking at the number of employees tells us a lot — almost everything, in fact — about how the school district is faring.

    When we look, we find that starting in 2011 the number of employees in the Lawrence school district has risen faster than the number of students. (The count is divided into certified employees and K-12 teachers, and does not include special education teachers.) Correspondingly, the ratios of these employees has fallen over the same period. The pupil-teacher ratio has fallen from 17.28 to 15.47, and the certified employee-pupil ratio has fallen from 11.70 to 10.85.

    So however spending is compartmentalized, whether KPERS contributions are included or not, whether the funding comes from state or local sources, whether spending is adjusted for inflation, the Lawrence school district has been able to improve its employee-pupil ratios substantially.

    Data is from Kansas State Department of Education. Visualization created using Tableau Public. You may use the visualization to view figures from all Kansas school districts here.

    Lawrence school district employment and enrollment. Click for larger.
    Lawrence school district employment and enrollment. Click for larger.
    1. National Center for Education Statistics: The Condition of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Finance, Public School Expenditures. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp. ↩
  • Wichita TIF district disbands; taxpayers on the hook

    Wichita TIF district disbands; taxpayers on the hook

    A real estate development in College Hill was not successful. What does this mean for city taxpayers?

    ParkstoneSeeking to promote the redevelopment of land northeast of Douglas and Hillside, the City of Wichita entered into agreements with Loveland Properties, LLC, College Hill Urban Village LLC, and CHUV Inc. The original plans were grand: A Northeast Brownstone Complex located at the northeast corner of Victor and Rutan, a Condominium Tower and Brownstone Complex, a West Brownstone Complex, and the South Retail/Residential Complex. A city analysis in 2007 projected that by 2010 the value of these projects would be $61,817,932.

    Unfortunately, this project did not proceed as planned. The Northeast Brownstone Complex was built, and nothing else. Those brownstone condominiums proved difficult to sell. The project held great promise, but for whatever reasons things did not work as planned, and the city has lost an opportunity for progress.

    The questions now are: What is the impact on taxpayers? Is there anything to learn as the city moves forward with other public-private partnerships?

    City documents tell the story of this project, if you know how to read between the lines. 1

    City document says: “The City financed $3,685,000 in TIF bonds in 2014.”
    What it means to you: Tax increment financing, or TIF, is a method of economic development financing whereby additional property taxes (the “increment”) are redirected back to a real estate development. In this case, the city sold these bonds and gave the proceeds to the developer. Then — according to plan — as property values rose, the correspondingly higher property taxes generated by the development would pay off the bonds. Except, property values did not rise. So who pays? According to the bond documents, 2 “The full faith, credit and resources of the Issuer are hereby pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond.” The Issuer is the City of Wichita, and the resources the city has to pledge are taxes it collects from its taxpayers.

    ParkstoneCity document says: “An additional amount of tax exempt expenses related to the project, totaling $1,785,000, were paid off by the Finance Department using cash from the Debt Service Fund.”
    What it means to you: These costs were to be paid by the developer, but the developer did not pay. So, the city’s Debt Service Fund was used. The Debt Service Fund gets its money from taxpayers, and this money is being used to pay off a debt owed by a private person. This is necessary because the debt payment is guaranteed by the city, which in turns means it is guaranteed by the taxpayers. If not spent to satisfy the debt for this project, this money might have been used to pay off other city debt, reduce taxes, pay for more police and firemen, fix streets, and satisfy other needs.

    City document says: “The City will be responsible for maintenance and property taxes for the property until the property can be sold.”
    What it means to you: More expense for city taxpayers.

    ParkstoneCity document says: “Any tax increment generated from existing and future development will be used to repay TIF bonds. Staff does not expect remaining TIF revenue to be sufficient to repay the outstanding debt.”
    What it means to you: As explained above, taxpayers are on the hook for these bonds.

    The original agreement with the developer says: “In addition to all the terms, conditions and procedures for fulfilling these obligations, the Development Agreement also provides for a Tax Increment Shortfall Guaranty in which the developer and other private entities with ownership interest in the project are required to pay the City any shortfall in TIF revenue available to pay debt service on TIF bonds.”
    What it means to you: Nothing. It should mean something. The city tells us its participation in these ventures is free of risk to citizens. That’s because recipients of incentives like TIF pledge to hold the city harmless if things don’t work out as planned. In this case, if the TIF district revenue is not enough to pay the TIF district bonds, the developer has pledged to pay the difference. But it is unlikely that the city will be able to collect on the promise made by this developer.

    But there may be good news: The first phase of the project, the brownstones, is now owned by Legacy Bank. Hopefully, the city will be able to collect the TIF shortfall from this new owner so that taxpayers don’t have to pay.

    The project plan formulated by the city says: “Net tax increment revenue is available to pay debt service on outstanding general obligation bonds issued to finance eligible project costs.” This statement is true if everything works as planned. But real estate development is risky. Things may not work out as planned. City documents don’t tell taxpayers this. Instead, city leaders present these projects as though everything will work out as planned.

    There is some undeveloped land that was to be used in future phases of the project. But even empty land is harmful to city taxpayers, as city documents state: “The developer has not paid property taxes on the parcels from 2010 to 2015, resulting in $400,080 in current and delinquent taxes owed. The City will now be responsible for the taxes.”

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita City Council Agenda Packet, March 15, 2016. Available here. ↩
    2. From the Additional Provisions of the series 813 bonds: General Obligations. The Bonds constitute general obligations of the Issuer payable as to both principal and interest, in part from special assessments levied upon the property benefited by the construction of the Improvements (as said term is described in the Bond Resolution), in part from incremental property tax revenues derived in certain tax increment financing districts within the Issuer and, if not so paid, from ad valorem taxes which may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount upon all the taxable tangible property, real and personal, within the territorial limits of the Issuer, the balance being payable from ad valorem taxes which may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount upon all the taxable tangible property, real and personal, within the territorial limits of the Issuer. The full faith, credit and resources of the Issuer are hereby pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond and the issue of which it is a part as the same respectively become due ↩
  • Kansas Supreme Court judicial selection

    Kansas Supreme Court judicial selection

    Kansas progressives and Democrats oppose a judicial selection system that is used by U.S. Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans.

    What is the substantive difference between these two systems?

    A) A state’s chief executive appoints a person to be a judge on the state’s highest court. Then the state’s senate confirms or rejects.

    B) A nation’s chief executive appoints a person to be a judge on the nation’s highest court. Then the nation’s senate confirms or rejects.

    Perhaps there is a difference that I’m not smart enough to see. I’m open to persuasion. Until then, I agree with KU Law Professor Stephen Ware and his 2007 analysis of the way Kansas selects Supreme Court judges as compared to the other states.1 That analysis concludes that “Kansas is the only state in the union that gives the members of its bar majority control over the selection of state supreme court justices.”

    Ware has made other powerful arguments in favor of discarding the system Kansas uses: “In supreme court selection, the bar has more power in Kansas than in any other state. This extraordinary bar power gives Kansas the most elitist and least democratic supreme court selection system in the country. While members of the Kansas bar make several arguments in defense of the extraordinary powers they exercise under this system, these arguments rest on a one-sided view of the role of a judge.”2

    Judges, Ware says, make law, and that is a political matter: “Non-lawyers who do not know that judges inevitably make law may believe that the role of a judge consists only of its professional/technical side and, therefore, believe that judges should be selected entirely on their professional competence and ethics and that assessments of these factors are best left to lawyers. In short, a lawyer who omits lawmaking from a published statement about the judicial role is furthering a misimpression that helps empower lawyers at the expense of non-lawyers, in violation of basic democratic equality, the principle of one-person, one-vote.”3

    Kansas exhibits a pattern of selecting governors from alternate political parties.
    Kansas exhibits a pattern of selecting governors from alternate political parties.
    For Kansas progressives and Democrats to oppose Kansas adopting the same system that has enabled Barack Obama to appoint two liberal justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, with perhaps more to come — don’t they realize that Kansas will (likely) have a Democratic governor someday? As Clay Barker noted, for the last 50 years, no Kansas governor has been followed by a successor of the same party (except for Mark Parkinson filling the remainder of a term after Kathleen Sebelius resigned). If that pattern holds — and there’s no guarantee that it will — the next Kansas governor will be a Democrat, just three years from now.

    Superficially, it doesn’t seem to make sense for Kansas Democrats to oppose the governor making judicial selections while supporting the President of the United States having the same power. It does make sense, however, when we realize that Kansas Democrats are comfortable with the state’s bar selecting the judicial nominees that the governor may consider. (Which gives truly useful and enjoyable bars a bad name.) Lawyers, especially lawyers that take an active role in politics, tend to be Democrats, and progressive Democrats at that. If the Kansas bar was dominated by constitutional conservatives, would Kansas Democrats feel the same?

    I’m not claiming that the motives of conservative Kansas Republicans are pure. Will they change their stance on the desirability of the governor appointing Supreme Court judges if there is a Democratic governor? I don’t know, but I have a suspicion.

    Defenders of the current Kansas system claim that the system is based on merit, not politics. To which we must note that this year the Kansas Supreme Court was reversed by the United States Supreme Court. It wasn’t even close, with justices voting eight to zero that the Kansas court was wrong in its application of the law. (The other Supreme Court justice said “I do not believe these cases should ever have been reviewed by the Supreme Court.)

    1. Ware, Stephen J., Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court. Fed-soc.org. Available at: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/selection-to-the-kansas-supreme-court. ↩
    2. Ware, Stephen J., The Bar’s Extraordinarily Powerful Role in Selecting the Kansas Supreme Court (September 25, 2009). Kansas Journal of Law & Pubic Policy, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 392, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1478660. ↩
    3. Ware, Stephen J., Originalism, Balanced Legal Realism and Judicial Selection: A Case Study (August 3, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2129265. ↩
  • Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded

    Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded

    A bill working its way through the Kansas Legislature will give cities additional means to seize property.

    The bill is SB 338, titled “Rehabilitation of abandoned property by cities.” This bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 32 to eight. It has had a hearing in the House of Representatives.

    Wichitan John Todd is opposed to this bill and provided oral and written testimony this week to a House committee. In his testimony, Todd made these points, among others:

    • Senate Bill 338 appears to provide local governmental units with additional tools that they don’t need to “take” properties in a manner that circumvents the eminent domain statutes that private property rights advocates fought so hard to achieve in 2006.
    • The total lack of compensation to the property owner for the deprivation or taking of his or her property is missing in the bill.
    • Allowing a city or their third party take possession of vacant property they do not own and have not obtained legal title to is wrong.
    • Please take a look at a comparison between a free-market private sector solution as contrasted to a government mandated program to achieving affordable housing and the impact highly subsidized government housing solutions are having on adjacent home owners.

    Instead of being a problem, houses like these can present economic opportunity, says John Todd.
    Instead of being a problem, houses like these can present economic opportunity, says John Todd.
    In closing his testimony, Todd remarked: “In summary, cities in Kansas clearly have all the powers they need to deal with property issues through current law. By enhancing the power of cities and their appointed non-profit community redevelopment organizations to ‘take’ privately owned properties without compensation in an involuntary manner violates the individual private property rights that are essential for the rule of law and liberty to prevail.”

    Click here to view Todd’s written testimony and visual exhibits.

    Empty lots in northeast Wichita. Click for larger version.
    Empty lots in northeast Wichita. Click for larger version.
    Separately, Todd supplied a map of a portion of northeast Wichita. He remarked:

    I am told that there are over 100 vacant lots in this neighborhood represented by green color. It also shows “Poor” and “Very Poor to Unsound” properties in tan and yellow. SB 338 was touted to provide a tool to deal with blight. The point of this map is to demonstrate how the City of Wichita has been using existing law to deal with blighted properties, and how this law has facilitated the destruction of huge numbers of houses. Many had economic value, but there was no compensation to the property owners. My conclusion was that given the existing law, coupled with tax foreclosure sales, there was no need to give cities additional tools.

    What we have under existing law is actually a regulatory taking of private property with no compensation to property owners. Passage of SB 338 would expand those tools to allow cities or their chosen non-profit entities to seize vacant properties they do not have legal title to. The result for a property owner is a “regulatory taking,” ordered by the Kansas Courts with no compensation, allowing the city or the non-profit time to seek title through a mandated court order and judicial deed. Both are methods of forced government transfer and are wrong.

  • In Kansas, doctors may “learn” just by doing their jobs

    In Kansas, doctors may “learn” just by doing their jobs

    A proposed bill in Kansas should make us question the rationale of continuing medical education requirements for physicians.

    The bill is HB 2615, titled “Charitable healthcare providers; continuing education credits for gratuitous care of eligible patients.”

    The bill’s supplemental note explains the bill “… would allow charitable healthcare providers and dentists to fulfill one hour of continuing education credit for performance of two hours of gratuitous service to medically indigent persons.”

    In an op-ed published in the Wichita Eagle Representative Dan Hawkins explained “we believe that this system has the potential of generating more than $18 million in free care for the neediest Kansans.” (Rep. Dan Hawkins: Plan increases access to health care, reduces cost, March 7, 2016)

    Contrary to Hawkins, the care won’t be free. It may not cost the state anything, but it will have a cost to the doctors who supply the “free” care.

    Perhaps more importantly, this bill should make us question the purpose of continuing medical education requirements for physicians and dentists. In Kansas, physicians must participate in 50 hours of continuing medical education annually. This education requirement is satisfied by participating in “activity designed to maintain, develop, or increase the knowledge, skills, and professional performance of persons licensed to practice a branch of the healing arts.”

    But HB 2615 will let physicians satisfy 20 hours of this requirement by providing 40 hours of health care to needy people. Having doctors perform routine medical care — doing their daily job, in other words — doesn’t seem likely to advance the “knowledge, skills, and professional performance” of doctors, which is the stated goal of the regulation.

    We have, therefore, a regulation that seems reasonable — ensuring that doctors are up-to-date in professional knowledge — instead being used by the state to “encourage” doctors to provide free labor.

    Episodes like this should be a lesson in the powers and abuses of the regulatory state.

    The Kansas regulations

    According to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, physicians must participate in continuing medical education each year, earning “50 hours with a minimum of 20 hours of Category I and a maximum of 30 hours of Category II.”

    In more detail, the regulations state the continuing education is “activity designed to maintain, develop, or increase the knowledge, skills, and professional performance of persons licensed to practice a branch of the healing arts.” 1 Category I continuing education is “presented by a person qualified by practical or academic experience” and may consist of lectures, panel discussions, workshops, seminars, symposiums, and other formal learning opportunities. 2 The requirements are 20 hours of this education annually.

    Category II continuing education comprises activities that are less formal, such as “clinical consultations with other healing arts practitioners that contribute to a practitioner’s education, participation in activities to review the quality of patient care, instructing healing arts and other health care practitioners, patient-centered discussions with other health care practitioners, participating in journal clubs, using searchable electronic databases in connection with patient care activities. and
    using self-instructional materials.” 3 The requirements are 30 hours of this education annually.

    Of note, HB 2615 doesn’t seem to specify into which category will fall the hours of continuing medical education earned by providing service to needy patients.

    —
    Notes

    1. K.A.R. 100-15. (2016). Ksbha.org. Available at: http://www.ksbha.org/regulations/article15.shtml#kar100154. ↩
    2. ibid. ↩
    3. ibid. ↩
  • Kansas teachers union opposes bill that empowers teachers

    Kansas teachers union opposes bill that empowers teachers

    Kansas National Education Association, the state’s teachers union, opposes a bill that empowers teachers.

    A bill in the Kansas Senate would give teachers an ongoing voice in determining who represents them in their relationship with their employer. The bill is SB 469, titled “Recertification of professional employees’ organizations under the professional negotiations act.” It would require that the Kansas Department of Labor hold an election each year in each school district regarding whether the current representation should continue. These elections, in effect, would be referendums on the teachers union, by the teachers. (Update: The bill has been revised to call for elections every third year.)

    kansas-national-education-assocation-knea-media-response-team-logo-01As you might imagine, Kansas National Education Association and its affiliates like United Teachers of Wichita are not happy that teachers might have an annual opportunity to judge the union, and in a way that has consequences.

    We’ve known for a long time that the purpose of teachers unions is to advance the narrow, parochial interests of teachers instead of Kansas schoolchildren, parents, and taxpayers. Now we see that the leadership of the union is more concerned with the existence of the union and their highly-paid jobs. Who cares what teachers think?

    As it turns out, the union believes it knows what teachers think. In a message, the Kansas teachers union writes: “So, in short, anyone who works in our schools — board members, superintendents, administrators, and teachers — all oppose the bill.” I’d like to know how the union knows that everyone opposes the bill. The union might be surprised to learn there are teachers who are opposed to the union. These teachers, as professional employees, might not like working under rules more suited for blue-collar labor. These teachers might not like being paid according to a schedule that pays bad teachers the same as the good. They might not like being associated with an organization that promotes a false assessment of Kansas schools that is harmful to Kansas schoolchildren. These teachers might like to work in a charter school, something that the teachers union fights. There are even more reasons why Kansas schoolteachers might not like being associated with the Kansas National Education Association and its affiliates like United Teachers of Wichita.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: The caucus and the presidency, Wichita prepares a new regulatory regime

    WichitaLiberty.TV: The caucus and the presidency, Wichita prepares a new regulatory regime

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Looking back at the Kansas presidential caucus and should it matter who becomes president. A new regulatory regime in Wichita probably won’t help its stated purpose, but will be harmful. Then, more about regulation. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 113, broadcast March 13, 2016.

  • Spending in the states, per capita

    Spending in the states, per capita

    An interactive visualization of per-capita spending in the states, by fund.

    Is your state a big spender? Or is it frugal with your tax money? To see how your state compares with others in spending, use the interactive visualization below. The figures presented are per-person, and not adjusted for inflation.

    The example appearing below shows general fund spending for Kansas and some surrounding states.

    The visualization contains several views that present the data in different ways. Click here to open the visualization in a new window. Data is from National Association of State Budget Officers and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.

    General fund spending per capita in Kansas and surrounding states. Click for larger.
    General fund spending per capita in Kansas and surrounding states. Click for larger.
  • In Kansas, teachers unions should stand for retention

    In Kansas, teachers unions should stand for retention

    A bill requiring teachers unions to stand for retention elections each year would be good for teachers, students, and taxpayers.

    The bill is SB 469, titled “Recertification of professional employees’ organizations under the professional negotiations act.” It would require that the Kansas Department of Labor hold an election each year in each school district regarding whether the current representation should continue. These elections, in effect, would be referendums on the teachers union, by the teachers. (Update: The bill has been revised to call for elections every third year.)

    That’s a good thing. The teachers union monopoly ought to stand for retention once in a while.

    The bill has an estimated cost of $340,000 annually, including the hiring of 4 employees. But this is a situation ideally suited for outsourcing to one of the many companies that can perform this work. It would undoubtedly be less expensive and would not require the hiring of employees to do a job that is seasonal in nature.

    Further, the professional employees’ organization (union) that represents each district ought to bear the cost of the elections, if they want to continue representing a district.

    How effective has the teachers union been in advocating for teachers? In particular, teachers in the Wichita public school district ought to be wondering about the benefit of its union. The contract for this year did not include a pay increase, although the teachers do get some additional time off as the school year was shortened by two days. (Which makes us ask: Where is the concern by the board or teachers for the welfare of the students?)

    Wichita public school salaries and change. Click for larger.
    Wichita public school salaries and change. Click for larger.
    As far as performance over time, since 2008 teacher salaries in Wichita rose by 2.6 percent. Salaries for principals rose by 8.1 percent over the same period. Statewide, the increase in teacher pay was 7.7 percent, and for principals, 10.9 percent.

    On top of that, the Wichita teachers union takes credit for providing benefits that aren’t really benefits, such as when it promoted that only United Teachers of Wichita members would receive a copy of the employment agreement. In reality, it is a public document that anyone has the right to possess.

    There are many reasons why Kansas schoolteachers might be unhappy with their current union representation, including:

    Creating an adversarial environment for public schools in Kansas. Instead of cooperating on education matters, the union foments conflict with taxpayers.

    Forcing professional employees to work under rules more suited for blue-collar labor.

    Working to deny Kansas teachers a choice in representation. 1

    Promoting a false assessment of Kansas schools that is harmful to Kansas schoolchildren. 2

    Forming a task force to promote a false grassroots impression of support for the teachers union, complete with pre-determined talking points on a secret web page. 3

    Encouraging party-switching to vote in primary elections to protect union members’ “professional interests.” 4

    Constant drumbeat for more school spending without regard to competing interests and taxpayers.5 and taxes to support it.6

    Opposing the introduction of a modern retirement system, instead preferring to saddle Kansans with billions of dollars in debt.7

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, B. (2013). Kansas teachers union: No competition for us. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: http://wichitaliberty.org/education/kansas-teachers-union-no-competition-for-us/. ↩
    2. Weeks, B. (2016). Kansas schools and other states. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: http://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-kansas-schools/kansas-schools-and-other-states/. ↩
    3. Weeks, B. (2014). Our Kansas grassroots teachers union. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: http://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-kansas-schools/kansas-grassroots-teachers-union/. ↩
    4. Weeks, B. (2012). KNEA email a window into teachers union. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: http://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-kansas-schools/knea-email-window-teachers-union/. ↩
    5. KNEA – School Funding . (2016). Knea.org. Available at: http://www.knea.org/home/366.htm. Accessed 8 Mar. 2016. ↩
    6. KNEA – Taxes and Revenue. (2016). Knea.org. Available at: http://www.knea.org/home/368.htm. Accessed 8 Mar. 2016. ↩
    7. Weeks, B. (2011). KPERS problems must be confronted. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kpers-problems-must-be-confronted/. ↩