By
"It will take a long time to wade through the 139-page ruling, but even a cursory examination makes it clear that the three-judge panel didn’t let the facts get in the way of their decision. Instead, they made what amounts to a political decision that says the Legislature must increase funding by at least $548 million to meet the Rose standards even though school districts don’t know how to measure those standards." http://kansaspolicy.org/KPIBlog/124008.aspx


Kansas school funding decision ignores facts in arriving at a political decision
www.kansaspolicy.org
Today’s ruling on Gannon v. State of Kansas in which the Shawnee County District Court declared school funding to be unconstitutionally low ignores a long list of facts that disprove school districts’ contentions.  The three-judge panel ma
Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:14:11 +0000
By
KPI president Dave Trabert on today's ruling in the on-going school finance litigation, "This ruling willfully ignores a long list of facts that disprove school districts' contentions. The judges may even have ignored the State Supreme Court's order that adequacy is to be determined on whether outcomes - as defined by the Rose capacities - are being met. The judges essentially dusted off their original decision that was rejected by the Supreme Court and added some new legal jargon attempting to justify their original action in arriving at what is little more than a political decision."

Stay tuned for more analysis...
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:26:35 +0000
By
Gov't can provide quality service while saving taxpayers money.


A plan for balancing the Kansas state budget

Kansas Policy Institute President Dave Trabert presents KPI's plan to balance the state's budget without service reductions or tax increases. Trabert spoke a...
Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:34:52 +0000
Last Refreshed 1/31/2015 10:04:34 AM
KPIBlog
Print
Conflict of Interest or Height of Hypocrisy?
Posted by Dave Trabert on Monday, January 23, 2012
A recent story in the Wichita Eagle focused on comments from Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, regarding a conflict of interest for members of the House and Senate Tax Committees. After examining data gathered by the Eagle, showing that 20 of the 23 members of the House Taxation Committee and 9 of the 11 member of the Senate Tax Committee have business interests that would be exempted from state income tax under the Brownback plan, Hensley suggested that some of the members should consider recusing themselves from voting on the plan.

 “They certainly ought to at least let the general public and the rest of their colleagues know that they have a conflict of interest,” Hensley said. “We have rules in the Senate that provide for that.

“When a bill hits the floor on final action, you cannot be forced to vote if you have a conflict of interest and you announce that publicly before the vote takes place. It addresses this very kind of thing.”

It’s one thing if a piece of legislation targets a specific industry or employer, but when legislation applies uniformly as in this case, it’s simply not practical to have members of a part-time citizen legislature recuse themselves. And no one knows that better than Senator Hensley, a special education teacher in the Topeka district who routinely introduces and votes on legislation impacting public schools. Senator Hensley obviously believes he has no conflict on education issues, yet he has no problem finding fault with others who do the same as he.

It’s also noteworthy that the
Eagle story failed to mention this obvious conflict.
Comments:     
Posted by Guest on Monday, January 23, 2012
Conflict of interest arguments are only valid in the eyes of the beholder
Archives