Wednesday, December 18, 2013

State Rep John Rubin's Bills for More Transparency in State Government

Our Shawnee Representative in the Kansas House, John Rubin, has long been an ardent advocate of full governmental transparency and accountability.  He believes that responsible governance demands that elected officials always strive to fully inform themselves on the issues and all aspects of legislation on which they vote, to cast informed votes, and always to disclose to their constituents how they voted on the public policies that affect the lives of Kansans.

For these reasons, Rep. Rubin is now fighting to change longstanding Kansas legislative practices of bundling multiple bills in a single conference committee report for one vote under the Joint Rules, and of not recording votes on bills, resolutions and amendments in the Committee of the Whole on General Orders under the House Rules, practices he believes are undemocratic.   He has drafted resolutions amending the Kansas Legislature's Joint Rules and House Rules to correct these undemocratic legislative practices, and plans to prefile them the week before the 2014 legislative session starts.  

The first is a Concurrent Resolution amending the Joint Rules to provide that a conference committee report may contain only the bill being conferenced and all or part of one other bill that has passed either Chamber during the current term.  Existing practice allows for an unlimited number of additional bills or parts of bills  to be added to a conference committee report (CCR).   Often, legislators have little if any opportunity to fully inform himself or herself of the contents, consequences or effects of the many additional bills in a CCR, particularly if the added bills did not originate in and were not debated in their Chamber, and particularly under the pressing time constraints experienced late in session, when most of these CCRs are considered.  Accordingly, the likelihood that most members are even marginally well informed on the votes they are asked to cast on these multi-bundled CCRs is slim.  Worse, it is highly likely than in any CCR with six, eight or more such bills, a member may fully support some of the bundled bills because they square with the member’s principles and are, in his or her view, good public policy, and may oppose others because they are not.  In short, current practice virtually ensures that members often cast uninformed and unprincipled votes on much of the public policy contained in multi-bundled CCRs.  Rep. Rubin believes that is no way to govern.  His Concurrent Resolution will correct these irresponsible and undemocratic  practices.

The second Rubin proposal is a House Resolution amending the House Rules to require that all House floor votes, whether in the Committee of the Whole on General Orders or on Final Action, shall be recorded votes.  Current practice on General Orders in the Kansas House is that all votes on bills, resolutions and amendments are voice votes, or, on a division call,  unrecorded electronic votes, absent a show of 15 hands requiring a recorded vote.  Make no mistake – those “unrecorded” electronic division votes are in fact being recorded outside the chamber and in the House Gallery, by handwritten notes, camera phones directed to the closed circuit television screen, and otherwise,  by government officials, lobbyists, and other political insiders vested in the outcomes of these votes.  Rep. Rubin believes that citizens should have the same access to these vote results that political insiders do.  Moreover, all Kansans are, in  his view, entitled to know how legislators vote on every public policy question put to them – in bills, amendments and resolutions – not just on Final Action, but preliminarily on General Orders as well.  In his view, legislators' oath of office and their responsibility to be transparent in their votes and accountable to the people of Kansas for them require no less.


I applaud Rep. Rubin for his noteworthy efforts to enhance public transparency and accountability in the Kansas Legislature. 

Let John know that you support his efforts, of if you'd like more info:  Email:john.rubin@house.ks.gov

If your Shawnee State rep is Charles Macheers, Email:charles.macheers@house.ks.gov Brett Hildabrand, Email:hildabrand2010@gmail.com or Kelly Meigs, Email:krmeigs@live.com email them and ask them to support John's bills:




Tuesday, December 17, 2013

New Kid on the Block

Well it's been almost two months since Stephanie Meyer was appointed to the city council for Ward III.

How has she been doing?  Well, it all depends on what items are of interest or importance to a person.

On three recent items I would have to say that Ms. Meyer definitely was "for the people", which I think is good.

1.  At the council committee meeting regarding changes in PS-7 and public input at committee meetings, she spoke in favor of citizen input and that is how it finalized.  Note:  Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught expressed a position that would have reduced public input.

2.  At the council committee meeting regarding the ballot for the proposed sales tax retentions and increases, Ms. Meyer spoke in favor of letting it go to the November general election.  That would be a no cost election for the city.  On the other hand, her ward mate Jeff Vaught spoke in favor of making it a mail in ballot in the spring which would cost the city $100,000.  Yepper, 100 big ones.

3.  At the city council meeting that saw the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor's uncle by marriage) to the planning commission, Ms. Meyer voted against it, wanting to see more representation from the west side.  Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught voted for Uncle Alan, which kept the planning commission unbalanced as to equitable representation by areas of the city.

So, on these three issues how would I rate her?  Three actions "for the people".  Good job.

Her ward mate, Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught on these three actions was definitely "against the people".  Puke time.


WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Shawnee Public Works Dept Receives Award

This info from the city's web site:

"The City of Shawnee’s Public Works Department - Field Operations Division received the 2013 American Public Works Association (APWA) Kansas City Metro Chapter Operations Program Award for its Snow Removal Program at the Annual Holiday Meeting and Award Ceremony."

Great job folks.  For the rest of the story please go herehttp://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwNews/F418C1BC9A8CD6D786257C3F006D757C?OpenDocument


Sunday, December 15, 2013

Jim Neighbor Claims Planning Commission is Unstable

At the recent city council meeting that saw the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor's uncle by marriage) Councilmember Jim Neighbor, Ward I said that we had a young planning commission and that Willoughby would bring stability.  Needless to say, Neighbor was one of four who supported the nepotistic appointment of Willoughby.

Young?  Chronologically young?  Time of service young?  Is Mr. Neighbor saying that the planning commission is unstable?  Apparently so, if the appointment of Uncle Alan would bring stability to it.

So, let's look at the time of service dates of the members, not counting Willoughby:

Bogina        12/2002
Bienhoff       2/2005
Busby           8/2007
Schnefke      9/2009
Hageman      7/2011
Kenig            2/2012
Fiser             6/2012
Navarro        8/2012
Wiseman      8/2012
Sheahan       8/2013

Willoughby's 1st term on the commission was from 4/2010 - 7/2012.  Actual previous time would give him just two more months service than Commissioner Hageman.

What's wrong with that make up?  What kind of stability can Willoughby bring?  Was Neighbor referring to their actual ages?  Don't know and don't have that info.

I do remember there was a time, not too long ago when Councilmember Vaught made some negative comments about some who at that time had service on the council over 20 years.

So, what is the proper balance?  And if the planning commission is/was unstable maybe the mayor needed to ask for resignations.

I think Neighbor's comments were a bunch of nonsense.  Actually I think they were something else.


WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Mayor Breaks Tie Vote to Get Uncle Alan Appointed to Planning Commission

If you followed my post from last week, (scroll down, it is the one from 12/5/13) you will see that Mayor Jeff Meyers was recommending his uncle by marriage, Alan Willoughby to the Planning Commission.

You may remember that it was Willoughby's appointment to the city council to fill an open seat that prompted a KOMA investigation by the JoCo DA.  The investigation resulted in a letter that was definitely a reprimand. 

So, what happened last night?  When the mayor put Willoughby's name out there it started an interesting discussion.  It seems that with the recent appointment of Stephanie Meyer to the City Council (which created the opening on the planning commission), that the make up of the commission became even more lopsided.  Of the remaining 10 members, only 2 live west of I-435 and only one of those resides in Ward III.  Willoughby's application was dated last Wednesday 12/4 just in time to make it on the agenda.  Ironically, a Ward III resident put their application in within days of the aforementioned council appointment.

Yours truly got up and suggested that the council table the item and look to find an individual out of Ward III to fill the position.  This would be a step towards balancing the commission and also involve folks who live in the area of the city with the most future growth potential.

You would think that the Ward III councilmembers would be in favor of that.  Well, they were split.  The newest member of the council, and from Ward III, Stephanie Meyer did voice objections to Willoughby's appointment.  And she was right.  On the other hand, Jeff "His Royal Arrogance" Vaught raised all kinds of bovine scatological arguments to support Willoughby.  Guess he really doesn't care about the folks in his own ward.

What was the final result?  Four councilmembers voted against the Willoughby appointment.  Those four were Dan Pflumm, Ward I, Mike Kemmling Ward II, Stephanie Meyer Ward III and Michelle Distler Ward IV.  These four did the right thing.

Who were the four that supported the mayor's nepotistic action?  Jim Neighbor Ward I, Neal Sawyer Ward II, Jeff Vaught Ward III and Mickey Sandifer Ward IV.

So, now we had a tie.  The mayor chose to use his tie breaking powers to appoint his uncle by marriage to the planning commission.


WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.

Sunday, December 08, 2013

Vaught Pushes to Waste $100,000 of City Funds

Wow, the headline is a strong statement.  But, it is a fact.

At last Tuesday's (12/3/13) Council Committee meeting an item came up to put the issue of continuing two sales taxes (collectively known as Parks & Pipes) and a new one for pavements, on a ballot for the citizens of Shawnee to vote on.  The merits of the taxes will not be discussed in this post.

Now that is the way it should be.  The citizens have a right to vote on these items.  Here's the problem:  City Manager Gonzales proposed a time line that would create a mail in ballot in the spring of 2014.  That would cost $100,000.  The city could put it on the ballot for the November general election at no cost.  The November election is a county wide election and cities can piggy back for zero dollars in election costs.  Various council members expressed concern about spending the $100,000 when the item could be put before the voters at no charge.

Councilmember Vaught appeared to be the primary proponent for doing it in the spring.  In his rants he even went so far as to accuse another council member of having "blinders on" because that council member had the temerity to disagree with His Royal Arrogance.  So much for civility, which Vaught has always claimed we need more of on the council, but is the first to be uncivil.  Vaught's concern stemmed from the concept that a tax question, on the bottom of a ballot during a partisan election would automatically be voted down.  Not so Mr. Know it All.  If the public is educated, regarding the pros and cons of the issues, then the citizens of Shawnee can make informed, intelligent decisions.  He even indicated that with a mail in ballot, the folks that had responded to the most recent citizen satisfaction survey (by mail) would be the ones to return them and then the items would be approved.
Looking around the metro there have been many tax items put on the ballot that have been approved, and yes, some have been turned down, but a larger turn out let's you know how the people feel.  This is something that if you listen closely to his comments, he is not in favor of............how the people feel.

Ironically, Council member Dan Pflumm challenged Vaught to the extent that Vaught was against spending $30,000 for a special election to fill the recent open Ward III seat, but now is willing to spend $100,000 instead of getting a freebie election.  Vaught's response was that there was a procedure for the council appointment set up.  He's right.  There is.  And it states that if the council does not fill the vacancy then it goes to a special election.  Naturally Vaught did not want that, even though 3 of the 4 interviewed for the position said it should.  Ironic, eh?

Anyway, back to the election for the sales taxes.  This matter will be coming back before the committee.  It is not over.  The people of Shawnee need to address this matter at a general election in November for two reasons:

1.  November elections get larger turnouts and more citizens of Shawnee could express their view, pro or con.
2.  A November ballot question would be at no charge to the city as opposed to $100,000 for a spring mail ballot.

If you don't believe me about Vaught's attitude and comments, then please listen to the audio of the meeting.  You can hear how he puts himself above all others, including the citizens of Shawnee.  The audio is available here:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/Agendas?OpenDocument&navKey=Home

Go to the 12/3/13 committee meeting and click on "Listen to Audio of Meeting"
To save time you can scroll forward to approximately the 1 hr 25 min mark of the meeting to hear this subject matter, bypassing the other two items on that agenda.


WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.



DTJVSD

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Mayor to Appoint Uncle Alan to Planning Commission

I'm on the city's email list to get notifications of all meetings.  Needless to say, when the notice for this upcoming council meeting (12/9/13) came in, I clicked on the link to view the agenda with supporting documents.

I was not prepared for what was contained on the agenda.  Mayor Jeff Meyers is recommending that the council appoint Alan Willoughby (his uncle by marriage) to the planning commission.

Sound familiar?  Well, Mr. Willoughby has previously served on the planning commission and then left that position when he was appointed to fill the unexpired term of David Morris who had resigned from the city council.  Remember the brouhaha that caused?  The KOMA investigation?  And yes, the letter from the JoCo DA which was clearly a reprimand.  (Yes a reprimand, even though we have one councilmember who does not understand the meaning/definition of that word).  Then, when "Uncle Alan" ran for the council on his own, for a full term, he was defeated.

Anyway an opening on the planning commission has occurred because Stephanie Meyer has been appointed to the city council.  So now the mayor wants to appoint "Uncle Alan" to the planning commission, again.  Is this the consolation prize for losing the election for the council?  Is this designed to give him another line on his resumé should he decide to run for the council in the 2015 election?

Ironically, another individual submitted the documentation (10/31) to fill the seat on the planning commission prior to the date of "Uncle Alan's" submission (12/4).  An individual with an engineering background, who has served as a public works director and who might just provide some fresh insight into the items that come before that commission.

I remember a couple of years ago when council member Vaught had a hold put on some applications for the planning commission.  Methinks, not only a hold, but a thumbs down vote is in order for this one.

For those who don't believe this is happening please go here:

http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Meetings/AGENDAS.NSF/vwNews/01F29E81ADCB439E86257C380080D015/$FILE/City_Council_2013_12_9_Agenda_with_Supporting_Documentation.pdf

WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.