Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sedgwick county government

  • In Wichita, creating more willing taxpayers

    What is the goal of Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investments Plan? Here’s an excerpt from “Citizen Attachment: Building Sustainable Communities,” which appeared in Government Finance Review. Authors are Mark A. Glaser, Misty R. Bruckner, and Corinne Bannon, all associated with the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. HWS is facilitating the planning process for the city and county.

    Increasingly, citizens are retreating from their responsibilities to community and demanding more from government than they are willing to pay for. But changes in local government behavior can be instrumental in reversing this trend, by strengthening citizens’ commitment to the well-being of their communities. Citizens who are committed to community are more willing to accept responsibility for the well-being of their fellow citizens and are also more likely to join with government and other parties to improve their communities. Citizens who are committed to community are also more willing taxpayers — that is, when government demonstrates that it can be trusted to invest public resources in ways that strengthen the community. The central thrust of this model is getting citizens and governments to work together, but realistically, many communities will require new revenue — including additional tax dollars — if they are to assemble the critical mass of resources necessary for meaningful change. Accordingly, citizens who are willing to pay increased taxes are an important component of building sustainable communities.

    More willing taxpayers.

    Citizens who are willing to pay increased taxes.

    I recommend you read this paper. Click on Citizen Attachment: Building Sustainable Communities.

  • From the United Nations to Sedgwick County

    It took from 1987 to 2012, but Sedgwick County has adopted the language of the United Nations regarding sustainability.

    Those critical of sustainability planning are concerned that engaging in sustainable communities planning has the potential to import harmful policies and practices originating from the United Nations. Critics of these critics say this is nonsense and overreacting. Examples as reported in the Wichita Eagle come from Commissioner Dave Unruh and Commission Chair Tim Norton:

    Unruh said he sees the grant simply as an “effort to make decisions about our future for us and our future generations that will save money, conserve resources and be the best solutions for all the folks in our region.” …

    Norton said he sees the grant as a way to “look to the future, try to figure out best possible outcomes and make decisions today that will be good for tomorrow.”

    “We’re all in this together. You may not like the federal government. You may not like the state government. You may not even like the local government. But I like being at the table and being involved in the future.”

    He dismisses any connection to Agenda 21.

    “It was a non-binding agreement passed during the first Bush era,” he said of former president George H.W. Bush. “I don’t rail on President Bush because it happened on his watch. I’m not twitchy about it. I’m not worried about it.”

    The language Sedgwick County uses when considering sustainability comes directly from the United Nations. General Assembly Resolution 42/187: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development holds this language: “Believing that sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, should become a central guiding principle of the United Nations, Governments and private institutions, organizations and enterprises.” (emphasis added)

    Sedgwick County’s Sustainability Page holds this: Definition of Sustainability for Sedgwick County … Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs … (emphasis added)

    Sedgwick County left out the word “own,” but otherwise the language is identical. This definition was repeated on the county’s 2012 Employee Sustainability Survey.

    The Sedgwick County page — and other county documents — mention economic development, environmental protection, institutional and financial viability, and social equity as “the four core factors that Sedgwick County considers when making community policy and program management decisions.” These goals are often mentioned in Agenda 21 documents, especially social equity.

  • In Sedgwick County, a judicial candidate takes the low road

    Voters are accustomed to political campaigns that sink low with distorted facts, missing facts, innuendo, and outright lies. Judges, however, ought to be held to a higher standard, and in Kansas, the Supreme Court has rules for judges to follow in their campaigns. But the campaign for incumbent Richard T. Ballinger in Sedgwick County, Kansas, doesn’t seem to be interested in following these rules.

    In the Rules related to Judicial Conduct adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court, the title of canon four, covering political activity, starts with this admonition: “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”

    Specifically, the rules state:

    Rule 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
    (A) A judge or a judicial candidate shall not: …
    (4) knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement.

    The comment associated with paragraph 4 illuminates:

    [7] Judicial candidates must be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements made by them and by their campaign committees. Paragraph (A)(4) obligates candidates and their committees to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading, or that omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.

    Here’s one example of the ways the Ballinger campaign has acted in contrary to these rules in his campaign against challenger Zoe Newton: On November 2, Ballinger ran radio advertisements stating this about Newton: “more than 60 percent of her campaign contributions have come from her boss Wink Hartman, or Hartman’s companies, or a handful of Hartman’s business associates.” The ad goes on to claim that Newton, if elected, “owes a debt of gratitude to a select few.”

    The actual facts, however, are that based on my analysis of campaign finance reports through October 29, Newton herself has contributed 60.2 percent of her total campaign funds. We can see, therefore, that Ballinger’s claim violates the rule that requires judges to “knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement.”

    As far as owing a “debt of gratitude,” if a case involving Hartman or his business interests were to come before a Judge Newton, she would have to recuse herself. She wouldn’t be able to preside over the case.

    But that’s not the situation with the large number of Sedgwick County attorneys who have contributed to Ballinger’s campaign. Ballinger knows who his contributors are, and the contributors know who they are. But evidently, the rules in Kansas don’t require recusal or even notification to the parties to a case that there are political campaign contributions involved.

    Judge Richard Ballinger Facebook post, October 30, 2012.

    Another example: A Georgia political action committee ran radio advertisements critical of Ballinger. He ran advertisements criticizing “secret Georgia money,” and for a time, the source of that money was unknown. But the Wichita Eagle published an article where Wink Hartman acknowledged that he was source of the funding for the ads, a fact which Ballinger signaled awareness of by posting so on his campaign’s Facebook page. But the ads claiming “secret Georgia money” continued to run, making claims that were known to be false.

    Hartman’s response might not have been necessary if not for Ballinger’s claim made in a radio advertisement. Citing Ballinger’s long tenure as judge, the commercial — in a disparaging tone and manner — said that Newton “works for Wink Hartman.” Hartman is a well-known businessman and entrepreneur who ran for U.S. Congress in 2010. He adds value to our community through his successful business ventures. And since when is working in the private sector a bad thing? I’d argue that diversity of experience, including private sector business experience, is important to our stable of judges.

    Another example: On November 1, a radio ad in Ballinger’s own voice mentioned his cease and desist order issued by the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications. That document may be read here. Ballinger says that happened seven years ago, when as you can see, the order was issued in 2006, which is six years ago.

    It might be that the events for which Ballinger was cited (“inappropriately fraternizing with subordinate employees”) happened in 2005, which would be seven years ago. The cease and desist order doesn’t say. But Ballinger certainly knows when he committed these violations of judicial conduct, and if he wants to criticize an advertisement for getting dates wrong, he should reveal the record of his conduct. Either that, or we have to argue over the meaning of the word “this.” We’ve been through that (“it,” actually) with a former president.

    Ballinger also claims, in the same advertisement: “… the Kansas Supreme Court reappointed me as chief judge with complete knowledge of the facts.” This, to me, is misleading. The same advertisement attempts a clarification a little later, when Ballinger states “I was appointed chief presiding judge of probate court.” Even this clarification does little to give voters accurate information, as the probate division, at least presently, appears to consist of only one judge — Ballinger himself.

    Further, I believe that according to Kansas statute, it is the chief judge of a judicial district who appoints presiding judges, not the Kansas Supreme Court as Ballinger claimed.

    Another example: A Ballinger advertisement mentions that he was overwhelmingly re-elected by voters in 2008. Upon hearing that, most people would assume there was a challenger that Ballinger defeated. But there was no opponent for Ballinger that year, which is not uncommon in judicial elections. Consider Ballinger’s statement in light of a comment to the rules: “Paragraph (A)(4) obligates candidates and their committees to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading, or that omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.” (emphasis added)

    I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether boasting of an overwhelming victory in an election with no opponent is materially misleading.

    Similarly, when voters make a decision about electing judges, they should remember that the Kansas Supreme Court holds judges to a high standard of conduct in their campaigns.

  • Sedgwick County advance voting

    According to my analysis of data I’ve received from the Sedgwick County Election Office, 74,477 ballots have been mailed and 39,444 people have voted, either by mail or through in-person voting at the election office or advance voting centers.

    For comparison, in the 2010 general election 136,398 people voted in Sedgwick County, and in the 2008 general election, 194,688.

  • Sedgwick County tower sale was not in citizens’ best interest

    The sale of a radio tower owned by Sedgwick County reveals another case of local government not looking out for the interests of citizens and taxpayers, with the realization that the stain of cronyism is alive and well.

    As a result of system upgrades, the county no longer needs a radio tower located near 77th Street North and Interstate 135. Pixius Communications, LLC made an offer to purchase the tower and the five acre tower site for $280,000. The county proceeded making arrangements for the sale, preparing a sales agreement contract between Sedgwick County and Pixius with a sales price of $280,000, along with several other legal documents necessary to support the sale. These documents are available at the agenda file for this item.

    According to sources, County Manager William Buchanan supported the Pixius offer. So did commissioners Dave Unruh and Jim Skelton.

    But commissioners Richard Ranzau and Karl Peterjohn felt that the best way to sell the tower was through an auction.

    Commission Chair Tim Norton, because of his receipt of campaign contributions from Pixius, Jay Maxwell (owner of Pixius), and Penny Maxwell (spouse of owner), was going to abstain from voting. (Skelton has accepted contributions from the Maxwells, but he was going to vote nonetheless.)

    So there was not a majority of three votes to accept the Pixius offer. Buchanan suggested the auction. All commissioners agreed.

    Now we know the results of the auction: A Florida company offered $610,000. After a sales commission ($55,000) and half of closing costs ($1,128), the county will net $553,872. That’s almost twice the price the county manager and two commissioners were willing to sell the tower for.

    There’s something else: What will be the appraised value of the tower and site for tax purposes? The selling price of a property is strong evidence of its value. As a result of the auction, therefore, this property is likely to be appraised at $610,000 instead of $280,000. That’s good for those who think it’s good for government to bring in more tax revenue.

    This episode is another instance where no-bid contracts and cronyism cost taxpayers. Maxwell, the almost-beneficiary of this sweetheart no-bid contract, has been the recipient of many benefits at taxpayer expense, such as tax increment financing and community improvement district taxes. He’s tried for more, but even the Wichita City Council has a limit to its cronyism, now and then. Although cronyism and no-bid contracts have been a problem at Wichita City Hall.

    Interestingly, a recent KSN Television news story characterized Ranzau and Peterjohn as “hardline fiscal conservatives.” The story went on to report “Incumbent Democrat Tim Norton often sides with the two more moderate members of the commission with many votes being decided by a 3-2 margin.” Those moderate members are, of course, Unruh and Skelton.

    Norton didn’t have to take sides — at least publicly — on this issue, but I’m confident that if this was not an election year for Norton, he would have voted for the original Pixius deal that we now see was a disaster for taxpayers.

    In the KSN story Norton was quoted as saying “I’m a business man of many years in Wichita. I understand the business climate and job retention.”

    Unruh and Skelton are also businessmen. I hope these commissioners look after their personal business with more care and concern than they have shown for the business of taxpayers.

  • Select judges wisely, considering lawmaking role

    While candidates for judge usually campaign as being “above politics,” as someone who will apply the law impartially without regard to personal beliefs and convictions, the reality is that judges make law. Voters need to recognize this judicial function as they decide their votes.

    A recent paper by Kansas University School of Law Professor Stephen J. Ware (Originalism, Balanced Legal Realism and Judicial Selection: A Case Study) explains the role of judges. Ware’s paper is primarily concered with appellate courts, as that is where judges have the highest level of discretion. But the same principles apply to Kansas district court judges.

    At issue is whether judges are simply arbitrators of the law, or actual participants in the lawmaking process. Ware explains: “This realist view that statutory interpretation often involves ‘substantial judicial discretion’ and therefore constitutes ‘judicial lawmaking, not lawfinding,’ had by the 1950s, ‘become deeply rooted.’”

    A “‘balanced realism,’ to use Brian Tamanaha’s appealing label, recognizes both that judges’ policy preferences have little or no influence on many judicial decisions and that judges’ policy preferences have a significant influence on other judicial decisions. Empirical studies tend to support this balanced view.” In other words, there is some role for ideology in making judicial decisions. Politics, therefore, is involved. Ware quotes Charles Gardner Geyh: “In a post-realist age, the ideological orientation of judicial aspirants matters.” And the higher the court, the more this matters.

    Ware concludes: “Yes, of course judges’ allegiance should be to the law, including our state and federal constitutions. But that allegiance does not ineluctably guide the judge to make a particular choice among various reasonable interpretations of a vague or ambiguous constitutional or statutory provision.” For more, see Kansas lawmakers, including judges, should be selected democratically.

    So voters — when deciding which judges to elect to office or deciding whether to retain those already in office — need to consider politics and ideology, not just technical legal skills or promises to “unflinchingly apply the rule of law.” Voters should ask: Is the candidate likely to be a judge who would make decisions from a limited government perspective, or will the judge be favorably disposed to make decisions that expand the size and power of government?

    While political party membership is a only a rough — and not entirely accurate — indication of the political philosophy of a candidate, it’s about all voters have. Most judicial candidates avoid any mention of politics in their campaign materials and websites. Some don’t even mention the party they belong to, even though the contests may be partisan.

    Ware’s complete paper may be downloaded at no charge here.

  • Tim Norton commercial: Some context

    A television advertisement for Tim Norton, candidate for re-election to the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners, contains claims that, while probably true, hide the reality of Norton’s record.

    Tim Norton television advertisement

    One claim in the ad is that “I’ve worked hard to create new jobs, and save what we have.” A graphic in the ad reads “Over 18,000 new & retained jobs.”

    I don’t know the source of the job claims, but the numbers provided by Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, our area’s economic development organization, must be viewed with caution.

    An example is MoJack, a company which had received a forgivable loan from Wichita and Sedgwick County based on promises to create a certain number of jobs.

    But later MoJack revised its projections of job creation from 53 down to 26.

    A larger example is likely to be reported soon is the case of Hawker Beechcraft. Economic development officials are taking credit for retaining 4,500 jobs there, a dubious claim to begin with. But there have been hundreds of layoffs this year.

    Do economic development officials revise their statistics in response to these later events?

    We ought to also take a look at Sedgwick County employment since Norton took office in 2001. The following chart shows that the number of people working in Sedgwick County is lower now than in 2001. We’ve endured two recessions during that time, to be sure, and these were not the fault of anyone in Sedgwick County government. And while jobs are created, others are lost due to the dynamic nature of the economy.

    But when we talk about creating jobs, we ought to also take a look at the entire employment situation.

    Another look at Sedgwick County employment shows that government employment has grown at the expense of private sector jobs.

    I’m not saying that Tim Norton is responsible for the growth of federal and state employees in Sedgwick County during his three terms as commissioner. But this information provides context to any claims of job creation or growth.

    A recent report from GWEDC shows us that power of government to influence economic development is weak. The organization claimed to have created 1,509 jobs in Sedgwick County during 2011. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force in Sedgwick County in 2011 was 253,940 persons. So the jobs created by GWEDC’s actions amounted to 0.59 percent of the labor force. This is a very small fraction, and other economic events are likely to overwhelm these efforts. See Wichita economic development isn’t working.

    Tim Norton television advertisement

    Another graphic in the commercial reads “Reduced the mill levy 3 consecutive years.” This is true. But it’s not the entire history of Sedgwick County property taxes while Norton has been on the commission. The chart below illustrates.

    Notice how the property tax rate jumps in 2006? It increased from 28.758 to 31.315 mills, according to Sedgwick County Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. That’s an increase of 8.9 percent. Tim Norton, along with other commissioners, explicitly voted for this tax increase on August 9, 2006. It wasn’t an accidental increase. It was deliberate.

    While Norton in later years voted with other commissioners to reduce the mill levy — making the claim in the advertisement true — these reductions were not at his initiative. Instead, his attitude, I believe, is revealed by his opposition to initiatives that would require voter approval for tax increases. He prefers to keep the power to raise taxes.

  • Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan survey

    A survey created for the Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan has numerous problems and seems designed to satisfy the goals of government officials and planners instead of citizens.

    The process, titled “Community Investments Plan … a Framework for the Future” is the result of an initiative of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer made during his “State of the City” address in January. 500 randomly selected people in Sedgwick County have been invited to attend, at least to start, a series of four meetings held evenings. The first meeting was last night. Twelve of the invited participants attended.

    As part of the process, participants will help develop a survey that will be administered to 25,000 residents in January. A draft of the survey may be viewed at Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan Survey.

    There are a number of problems with the survey. For many of the questions, the only possible responses are “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Agree,” and “Strongly Agree.” There is no possibility for answering “Don’t know,” “Need more information,” or something like that.

    The introduction to the section of questions titled “Global Economy and the Strength of Community” reads “We must make some difficult choices about how best to invest limited resources to strengthen the local economy and to improve quality of life today and for future generations. The outlook for the future depends in part on the willingness of the community to pull together and respond to global challenges.”

    Who does the opening “We” refer to? Individuals, corporations, small business firms, churches, or government? Each operates from a different investment perspective, I think we can agree.

    Then, there’s the statement that the “community” must “pull together.” Again, the term “community” is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. And “pull together”: Does that mean people voluntarily forming business firms, charities, or mutual aid societies? Or does it mean government?

    Another question: “Local government, the school district, community organizations and the business community should work together to create an investment climate that is attractive to business.”

    The meaning of an attractive investment climate means different things to different people. Some people want an investment climate where property rights are respected, where government refrains from meddling in the economy and transferring one person’s property to another. An environment free from cronyism, in other words. But the Wichita way is, unfortunately, cronyism, where government takes an active role in managing economic development. We in Wichita never know when our local government will take from us to give to politically-favored cronies, or when city hall will set up and subsidize a competitor.

    Another statement that survey respondents are asked to agree or disagree with: “The growing divide between citizens is one of the most important threats to the well-being of our community and nation.”

    Is there, in fact, a “growing divide?” And if there is, what is the cause? The growth of government leads directly to the destruction of civil society, that being where people cooperate voluntarily to solve problems and create beneficial institutions. Civil society is being replaced with the political society, where someone else makes decisions for you, notwithstanding efforts like this survey.

    When we see the city council awarding no-bid contracts to their campaign contributors — contracts that, when put to competitive bid, come in at lower cost: This is what creates a divide in our community.

    When we see a council member receive thousands in campaign contributions from an out-of-state company right as he is about to make a controversial vote that means millions to that company: This destroys civil society and creates divides.

    There is an entire section of statements that start with “Local government should use public resources …” Instead of the euphemism “public resources,” why not call it what it is: Taxpayer money. Your money.

    There are three questions relating to the subsidy program at the Wichita airport. An example is “I’m willing to pay increased taxes or fees to support investment … that uses public dollars to reduce the cost and increase the number of commercial flights at Mid-Continent Airport.”

    This is an example of a question where the premise is false. Since the subsidy programs have been in place, the number of flights from the Wichita airport has declined, not increased. See Wichita flight options decrease, despite subsidies and Wichita airfare subsidy: The negative effects.

    Monthly departures from WichitaMonthly departures from the Wichita airport

    At least the final section of questions is prefaced with whether people are willing to pay more taxes or fees in order to support spending. But for most of the survey, situations are presented without regard for cost. An example is “The community should improve public transportation by making bus travel faster and more convenient including evening and weekend service.” How could anyone be against that, especially when senior citizens are mentioned, as in one question?

    But if survey respondents were told that most bus systems, including Wichita’s, receive only about 20 percent of their revenue through the farebox, and that taxpayers pay the rest, how might they respond then? And how many people are aware of the massive taxpayer subsidies — excuse me, “public resources” — that are required?

    Overall, the survey appears to be designed to bring people to conclusions the survey sponsors want, or provide answers that can be interpreted in they way they want. Not defining terms like “community” and an “investment climate that is attractive to business” allow the survey sponsor to create their own interpretation of the results.

    And who is the survey sponsor? A collaboration between local government and the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. This academic unit exists to produce future generations of government planners, and they’ll all want jobs. City hall and the county building are full of politicians and bureaucrats that, with few exceptions, seek to expand their influence, budgets, and power.

    When we put professional planners and bureaucrats in charge of a survey designed to gauge attitudes towards the desirability of planning — is the answer not predetermined? It’s not that the planners are dishonest people. But they have a vested economic and professional interest in seeing that we have more government planning, not less.

    Perhaps a program like this would better be administered by a market research firm, whose goal and interest would be to find the truth, regardless of the wishes of the client.

    But really, there is a very simple way for government to get the answers it is seeking. Joseph Ashby said it well on his radio program: If government wants to know how people want their money spent, it should let them spend their own money.

    Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan Survey

  • Wichita economic development, two stories

    Two items on the agenda for the Wichita City Council give an insight into the nature and efficacy of economic development efforts in Wichita.

    First, a local company will come to the Wichita City Council asking for a property tax exemption. This is not unusual, as it happens almost every week, and multiple times at some meetings. In this case, we learn that estimates of job creation used to support an economic development incentive weren’t realistic.

    The company, MoJack, had received a forgivable loan from Wichita and Sedgwick County based on promises to create a certain number of jobs. The loan amount was $35,000 from each, for a total of $70,000. If MoJack meets the job and payroll targets, the loan will be forgiven.

    But we learn in city materials this week that there’s been a change: “As a result of this expansion, Mojack plans to add at least 26 new employees to its workforce at a starting average wage of $44,000. In June 2012, Mojack repaid the forgivable loan because it had been based on an earlier estimate that 53 new jobs would be created, which was not realistic.” (The agenda report may be read at Public Hearing and Tax Exemption Request (Mojack Holdings, LLC/Mojack Distributors, LLC).)

    In June, MoJack repaid its forgivable loan to Sedgwick County, presumably for the same reasons.

    While city officials say they conduct due diligence before granting economic development incentives, the reality is that economic development officials have to work with whatever figures the applicant companies provide. How can the city verify the projected growth of a company? We wouldn’t want to even give that a try.

    What’s important is this: Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition is our economic development agency. In their annual report of their activities, they took credit for the MoJack jobs. Now that the number of jobs to be created is expected to be smaller, will GWEDC update its job creation figures?

    Also, MoJack participated in several economic development incentives from the state of Kansas. Hopefully the Kansas Department of Commerce will consider the new, revised employment projects with managing its incentive awards, and will also update its claims of job creation accordingly.

    We also learned this week that Hawker Beechcraft may not be meeting its agreed-upon employment levels required to continue to receive incentives from the state, Sedgwick County, and City of Wichita.

    In Wichita Business Journal reporting we learn the numbers:

    Hawker Beechcraft Corp. appears to be close to violating an agreement with state and local governments to maintain employment of at least 4,000 workers in Wichita.

    The company has declined to discuss its employment level in detail and as recently as last week told the Wichita Business Journal that it had employment of 4,500 workers, the same number it reported to the WBJ in March.

    However, according to a database of mass layoffs maintained by the Kansas Department of Commerce, from March to June this year Hawker issued 885 60-day layoff notices to Wichita employees. And since late July it has filed layoff notices for 56 more Wichita workers.

    All told, that’s 941 layoff notices since March. If all those job cuts have taken place, and the 4,500 number was accurate in March, that would suggest a current employment level of 3,559 in Wichita, based solely on layoffs and not assuming any potential attrition or, on the other hand, new hires.

    The article explains that while the official job count for agreement compliance purposes is taken at the end of the year, Hawker is not forthcoming with information about its employment levels. While it is not required to answer WBJ’s questions about its job count, we should remember that we have a public-private partnership with Hawker, under which taxpayers will be investing millions in the company. Wichita economic development leaders tout the public-private partnership as a powerful tool.

    By taking our money and entering in a partnership, Hawker ought to be more forthcoming with legitimate information requests. Failure to do so is not polite, even if it is not required.

    There’s also this question: When Hawker releases its employment figures, will GWEDC adjust its success story to reflect the likely lower number of jobs? If we’re to have an economic development effort that’s based on factual information, GWEDC should. But based on past history, I doubt it will. Therefore, we continue to make decisions based on incomplete data and facts.

    By the way, the Hawker Beechcraft campus is outside the city limits of Wichita. By what authority does the city give it Wichita taxpayers’ money?