How many times have you heard the words “nonpartisan” or “bipartisan” or “nonpolitical” uttered by politicians right before they do something that is clearly political?

My guess is we’d all be rich if we have a $1 for each time that happens. It’s as if labeling something nonpolitical somehow makes it so, even if what they are about to do is clearly political.

That’s how we were introduced to a Senate bill dictating how redistricting would happen after the 2010 census.

Those on the left in leadership in Topeka are pushing this bill: Sens. Steve Morris and Derek Schmidt (Republicans), along with Sen. Anthony Hensley and Rep. Paul Davis (Democrats).

The bill, SB 291, is just eight pages long, so I’d encourage you to take a look at it.

If you do, have some strong coffee first because the details the description starts with are enough to resolve most cases of insomnia. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and if you read far enough, you find them.

You see, this plan they’ve dreamed up would require the Senate majority leader (Schmidt), the House majority leader (Ray Merrick), the Senate minority leader (Hensley), and the House minority leader (Davis) to each name one person to a “temporary redistricting advisory commission.”

The list of persons not eligible to be appointed is long. Are you a city council person or township trustee elected in a partisan race? Ineligible. Are you a party officer? Ineligible. Do you work for the state? Ineligible. Is your cousin a state or federal office holder? Ineligible.

We wouldn’t want anyone with a potential bias or experience in politics or government on this commission. Never mind that very political persons are appointing these people, and that no specific expertise is required to be appointed (I don’t see a best friend or business partner ruled out, by the way) and the commission is required to rely on state employees with legislative research for their data.

Those backing this bill claim that removing this responsibility from the Legislature would make the process non-political and therefore leads to a better outcome.
Under this bill, we’ll have a new commission, not directly accountable to the voters, deciding what district you will live in for the next 10 years.

Now you have four political appointees. Who’s going to lead? Well, that’s up to them. They pick a fifth person to chair their temporary commission. So, we have a new commission, not directly accountable to the voters, deciding what district you will live in for the next 10 years.

Don’t like what they decide? There’s not much your representative or senator can do, even if they listen to your concerns, other than voting no time after time. It’s not until they’ve voted down proposed bills twice and are voting on a third bill that they are allowed to make anything but technical amendments.

Can you imagine the political fallout from voting down the plan twice and then amending the third one in an election year? Even the bravest of politicians probably won’t want to take that on!

The closest the public would come to being able to hold the commission accountable for the plans they present is to hold their representative and senator accountable in 2012 for whom they elected as majority or minority leader in their chamber in 2008 (for the Senate) or 2010 (for the House).

Perhaps the most important vote they make is for these leadership positions, but explaining that to the public and then making it a campaign issue is challenging at best.

And can you see the games for 2020 now? Promise me my friend will be appointed by you to the redistricting commission and I’ll vote for you for majority (or minority) leader. Suddenly the “nonpolitical” commission is tied to some very real political actions in a way that the public rarely sees.

Many of the rules for the commission to follow that are spelled out in this bill are similar to how redistricting was handled the last time around – without special legislation to make it happen. The one big change? Public hearings happen after a plan is finalized.

But there is more in this bill and it’s this part that is the most troubling: the commission isn’t allowed to reveal any of the details they are working on to the public or the Legislature until after they’ve finalized them.

This reminds me of the Ethics Commission or the Supreme Court nominating commission, both of which deliberate and come to conclusions in secret executive sessions and then make an announcement.
Say what you will about politicians making political decisions, at least they do their deliberations in public with input from citizens.

Say what you will about politicians making political decisions, at least when senators and representatives made up the committee the last time around, public hearings and committee meetings and decision making was done in full view and with the participation of the public, with much input from citizens around the state.

That’s one reason the lines for Congress were drawn as they were in 2002, as many wanted certain institutions or military bases to be in the same district and their elected representatives listened to their concerns. Moving this very important decision-making process to a closed-door, small, unaccountable-to-the-public commission is a step backwards for open transparency in government.

Will this bill see the light of day? It remains to be seen. Right now it’s sitting in the Senate Federal and State Committee – but if leadership wants it out, they can quickly call for a hearing and a vote and have it on the Senate floor in less than a day.

Assuming it passes the Senate, it still has to get through the House, and so far House leaders have been cool to the idea. As Speaker Mike O’Neal said recently about redistricting, “I think that is uniquely a legislative function.”

Let’s hope others realize this as well and this feel-good bill dies a well-deserved death.

Properly follow the rules in filing evidence of campaign finance violations. Magically see the accused “fix” the errors before Ethics investigates or holds a hearing. Ethics concludes no intentional violation happened but because a complaint was filed, the accuser cannot speak on the issue. Something doesn’t seem right and a reporter or two looks into the story so they can do their own investigation. Reporters, doing their job, report on what appears to be a whitewashing of campaign finance violations. Suddenly Ethics sees a violation and investigates a private citizen and fines him $7500 (click here to read more on that story). So much for protecting free speech, whistleblowers, or the freedom of the press. Oh, but one reporter who is absolutely certain the original charges were dismissed has never had to reveal his source for that information even though there is no way to know if no one has commented and violated the law, at least according to Ethics. Why has that source never been investigated? Perhaps because it “clears” the person they protected when they allowed him to “fix” his errors and then claimed he didn’t intentionally break the rules?

Meanwhile, in a Senate Committee meeting on this same day, a bill to protect a reporter’s source is shot down. (You can read more on that here.) I wonder what those Senators who voted against this are afraid might get said if sources could be protected from legislative inquiry?

So, here’s what you should take from this: if you have proof of violations of campaign finance law, don’t turn it in to Ethics, go public with it. And if you can’t risk being found out as the source of information, don’t tell a reporter when you see violations of the law.

Anyone else see a problem here?

Having said that, I’m going to take a risk and publicly ask – how is it that Carol Williams, Executive Director for Kansas Ethics, could acknowledge that an investigation of a private citizen was under way when acknowledging such a thing violated the law according to what she was saying the private citizen did wrong? Will we now see the Ethics Commission fine her?

Carol Williams, executive director of the ethics commission, said the board privately reviews all complaints. These preliminary assessments of evidence aren’t open to the public, she said. Neither the complainant nor the target of an allegation is permitted to comment publicly about the contents of a complaint, she said.If evidence points to a significant problem, Williams said, the commission could convene disciplinary hearings. Those are open to the public. Williams said Van Meteren might have committed a crime by speaking with The Topeka Capital-Journal about his case. A commission investigator in Topeka is looking into a possible counter complaint against Van Meteren.

As you can see above, unless the reporter made it up, Carol Williams said Kris Van Meteren was being investigated but didn’t yet know if they had probable cause to prove he violated the statute, which means she wasn’t allowed to comment! I can’t be the only person in Kansas who sees the inconsistently here, can I?

I believe it’s KSA 46-256 that they claim Van Meteren violated, but that’s also where I read that Williams can’t comment on the allegations against Van Meteren until after a hearing has been set, which I don’t believe was the case back in October.

I wonder, will anyone investigate if she broke the law? Will the legislature look into the secret goings on inside Ethics or are they more concerned with who writes $50 checks to organizations that make their actions public?

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission today fined a private citizen $7,500 for speaking to the media about a complaint he filed against state Sen. Dwayne Umbarger for misuse of campaign funds.

As far as the public knows, no hearing was conducted regarding the charges against state Sen. Umbarger. The commission has never publicly addressed the complaints or even acknoledged an investigation, but several news sources in Kansas have previously reported that the Ethics Commission is no longer investigating Sen. Umbarger and no fines against the Senator are on record.

When emailed for comment, Van Meteren still had nothing to say.

I would love to talk to you about this issue, (but) my attorney advises me that until a higher legal authority lifts the gag order the Ethics Commission has imposed on me, I really can’t.

Is that what our state has come to? Senators can funnel campaign cash and report such violations to the Ethics Commission, essentially proving a law violation, but as long as they amend their reports to be in compliance with the law, no action is taken.

And yet when a private citizen takes the initiative to root out corruption, wherever it may be, he is fined for his efforts by the very government commission that is supposed to be holding our politicians accountable.

For more in depth coverage, see today’s Kansas Meadowlark story.

Related Articles:

KRA Blog: Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger
KRA Blog: “Ethics” Commission targets private citizen
KRA Blog: First amendment case postponed one month
KRA Blog: Freedom of Speech defended at Ethics Hearing
Kansas Meadowlark: “Free Speech” May Cost Kansas Citizen $7500
Kansas Meadowlark: First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission
Kansas Meadowlark: Fines and other actions by the Ethics Commission at their December meeting
Kansas Meadowlark: 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?
Kansas Meadowlark: Ethics Commission Fines Candidate $500 and PAC $2500
Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
Kansas Liberty: Talking to press attracts Ethics Commission ire
Kansas Liberty: New campaign finance charges leveled against Umbarger
Kansas Liberty: Primary opponent says Umbarger violated campaign finance law
Kansas Liberty: Umbarger yields to ethics pressure, repays fund

What form of government is the best?

Timeline shows Top Democrats defended Fannie, Freddy.

Chuck Schumer: The American people don’t care about wasteful spending.

]]> http://www.kansasra.org/blog/archives/874/feed 0 http://www.kansasra.org/blog/archives/441 http://www.kansasra.org/blog/archives/441#comments Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:11:59 +0000 KRA ED http://www.kansasra.org/blog/?p=441 Below is the brief that was presented at the recent Ethics Commission hearing that Meadowlark describes in detail here.

While here, also feel free to participate in our poll to the right. Feel free to vote as many times as you like by hitting the refresh button.

Following the posting of my findings of Sean Tevis’ July and October 2008 campaign finance reports, the candidate found time in his busy schedule to respond.

Mr. Tevis stated his strong disagreement with my findings that he lied in his October 12th press release where he claimed that his campaign had, “taken no special interest money.” Tevis argued that he refunded the money over two months later so that he could, “stay lobbyist-free.”

Apparently, Tevis was for special interest money before he was against it.

But really, there are several flaws with his logic. First, the press release made a blanket statement. We’ve “taken no special interest money.” That’s a fact. Tevis took special interest money on 7/2/08. That’s a fact. Interpret that how you wish.

Second, refunding the money doesn’t change the fact that it was taken in the first place. If he wishes to argue that refunding the money means he’s free from the influence of special interest lobbies, then he’s free to do so. Unfortunately, he continues to promote endorsements by not only the KNEA, his first and largest Kansas contributor, but also the MainStream Coalition and others. In any case, the press release didn’t say, “we refunded all special interest money so we can be free from the influence of lobbyists.” It said they’d “taken no special interest money.”

Third, there’s no way he can “stay” lobbyist free when he retained contributions from special interests over a two month period. You can only “stay lobbyist-free” if you “began lobbyist-free.” Tevis did not begin lobbyist-free, so I don’t see how he can “stay lobbyist-free.”

He also asserted, “No one in my district donated more than $50, the legal limit required to list them on the official report.”

Mr. Tevis says he believes in open government and yet didn’t voluntarily itemize all his small donations. He doesn’t have to, of course, but to not do so and then claim he’s for open government is quite disingenuous. I personally would hope as an ‘advocate’ he would want to go above and beyond what the law requires.

Yes, legally, only donations over $50 are required to be itemized on campaign finance reports.

Does this mean you can’t list them? No.

Has any candidate for state office ever filed a campaign finance report with nearly 70% of all donations listed as ‘un-itemized?’ No.

Would a reasonable person expect that someone who claims to be an advocate of open government would disclose at least a majority of his donors? YES!

So in short, since Mr. Tevis is willing to give his donor list to the Kansas City Star (which never printed it), I’m sure he’ll have no problem filing an amended campaign finance report to the Government Ethics Commission reflecting all of his donors so everyone can see who his financiers are.

But in fairness, I’d also note that Tevis seeks a solution to government accountability that is quite ingenious and desirable.

Allow Kansans to review how government spends our money. We would do this by posting all of these records online in an easily browsable and searchable format.

I wholeheartedly agree that in the 21st century, there’s no reason why citizens shouldn’t be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent. It’s an important step in government accountability and openness.

Thankfully, Republican Representative Kasha Kelley successfully fought for and passed just such an act. Now, thanks to Republicans, citizens can now review tax collection and state expenditures online. Click here to visit the KanView website.

It’s not a perfect system by any means. I sometimes can be frustrated by it myself. But it is an important first step in holding government accountable to the citizens. And thanks to Republican’s efforts, it’s here today.