At the Wichita School Board meeting, Harold Schlechtweg, business representative of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 513, outlined the union’s efforts to pack a Sedgwick County legislative forum. The effort was so coordinated that Schlechtweg was able to list signs that were present at the forum and detail efforts of Wichita State University education students coming in to make calls to district employees. At one point, he even becomes somewhat confused and referred to the event as a “rally” rather than a legislative forum for the public.

Oh, oops, “I shouldn’t call it that!”

Do SEIU members have a right to be at these forums? Absolutely. Is it the union’s right to organize these people into a tax and spend frenzy? You bet. But isn’t this just the kind of actions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called “astroturfing?”

In light of a new plan by Senate conservatives to replace the budget shortfall with revenue from the sale of state property, are schools and spending advocates really concerned about this budget or do they just want to hike taxes? According to those at the forum on Saturday, SEIU attendees shouted down legislators who were trying to save the budget with this plan. Is this not what spending advocates wanted: more spending?

With a plan on deck that would “save” the budget, shouldn’t SEIU members cheer their victory? Or maybe it’s not about the spending at all? With a plan that achieves their spending goals but not their tax desires, the SEIU supporters on Saturday showed themselves to be nothing more than tax happy bureaucrats who could care less about their neighbor who’s out of a job or taken a pay cut in this down economy.

The SEIU forum crashers care about one thing and one thing only: raising your taxes. Regardless of achieving their own spending desires, regardless of their out of work neighbors and certainly regardless of the payments future generations will be making for decades to come.

The study concluded that a sales tax increase would cost private sector employment, but would fuel government jobs, thus saving close to 2,000 in the first year. The study confirmed a January study by Dr. Art Hall of the University of Kansas who ran a 6 year projection of over 26,000 private sector lost jobs. Monday’s study by Dr. John Wong of WSU only made one year projections.

Monday’s study received significant media coverage because of it’s pro-tax sympathies, while Hall’s January study received little attention.

Read more at:

• Studies Agree: A Sales Tax Increase Kills Jobs
• Who’s Really Behind Pro-Sales Tax Study
• Opposition blasts Wong report stating increase in taxes better than budget cuts

According to records obtained by the Kansas Meadowlark, SEIU donated $100,000 to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in the last election cycle. Is this new request a payback for all of that invested money? It certainly is beginning to look that way.

According to an SRS spokesperson, the department will ensure that the information is not used for “marketing purposes” and that SEIU will be picking up the expense of the request. And how does the SRS or any other government agency plan to enforce the use of information already handed over to the SEIU? Ask for it back? Shake their finger and say, “Bad SEIU, bad!”

Governor Parkinson and his agency heads should quickly abandon this payback scheme and a full legislative investigation should occur. It’s quite troubling that a simple KORA request can result in personal information being released to the public without the employees knowledge.

For more coverage, see Kansas Liberty.

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.

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

House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, and Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said it would have been illegal for the State Finance Council to have authorized additional short-term debt because state officials couldn’t honestly declare the state could pay the obligation by the end of the fiscal year.

The speaker and president said the Democratic governor must first deal with the $326 million deficit-reduction bill adopted by both chambers last week. Once action is taken on Senate Bill 25, O’Neal and Morris said expenditures and revenues would likely be brought in line sufficiently to approve more debt.

From Kansas Liberty:

When combined with previous requests, this would create a total loan of $775 for fiscal year 2009, the largest certificate of indebtedness ever issued in Kansas history.

This has understandably angered Democrats and liberals in general.

For the legislative branch to hold the executive branch over a barrel like this, to actually prevent payroll and tax returns from being made, is unprecedented and inexcusable. It is wholly unaccepted for the the Republicans to extort the Governor in this manner, and it comes awfully close to an out-and-out constitutional crisis. Separation of powers guarantees the governor’s power to sign or veto a bill, and if the House and Senate doesn’t like her action, they can always override her veto.

Absolutely true. Gov. Sebelius is free to veto the budget reduction act and continue to pretend the state has money to pay its bills. And legislative leaders are free to refuse to borrow more money that can’t be paid back. So, I guess everyone is free to do as they choose.

I would note however, that I heard not one Democrat complain about the 2005 Supreme Court Decision mandating a set amount of money be spent on K-12 education. Separation of powers only seems to be relevant when you’re on the loosing side.

State Treasurer Dennis McKinney had another take on the situation:

By failing to act on the recommendation of the state budget director to shore up balances in the general fund, legislative leaders put our reputation as a reliable bill payer and our credit rating at risk.

Wrong. Unprecedented spending on the part of liberal Democrats, including McKinney and Sebelius, has put our state’s fiscal reputation on the line.

Republican’s refusing to approve more debt that no one is sure would be able to be repaid, is simply the symptom of years of overspending by legislators and out of control court mandated spending sprees.

It is high time Sebelius and liberal Democrats face reality and address the disease rather than the symptoms.

In the Kansas Meadowlark post, “1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?”, the two counts are outlined.

Count 1. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Phil La Certe, blogger for KansasLiberty.com, the filing of and allegations contained in Complaint No. 422, filed by Kristian D. Van Meteren on Sept 17, 2008, amended on Oct. 8, 2008, and amended on Oct 15, 2008 …

Count 2. On or after Oct. 15, 2008, Kristian D. Van Meteren disclosed to Tim Carpenter, reporter for the Topeka Capital Journal, … [the same as in Count 1]

The complaint, brought by the commission itself rather than an outside source, is based on K.S.A. 25-4161(b).

Whenever a complaint is filed with the commission alleging a violation of a provision of the campaign finance act, such filing and the allegations therein shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in the campaign finance act.

The commission’s charges are interesting for several reasons.

1. The complaint was based on public campaign finance records. The records clearly show a violation of campaign finance laws. The commission could have (and should have) taken action on their own without a complaint from the public. The fact that they didn’t take action on their own is troubling.
2. The basis of the two counts is simply that Kris Van Meteren, the citizen filing the complaint, spoke with two media outlets regarding the complaint. If Van Meteren had not filed a complaint and still spoken with these two media outlets regarding the finance violations, there would be no basis for the two charges. However, if Van Meteren had not filed a complaint, it would have allowed the commission to neither confirm or deny an investigation. How convenient for a commission that seems to be rather disinterested in fining real campaign finance violations.
3. Hawver’s reported recently that the investigation into Umbarger was closed. According to the commission, even the closure of an investigation should not be disclosed to the public. So, how did the story get out? Did Sen. Umbarger leak the story? If so, will he be charged? Did someone within the commission leak the story? If so, will they be charged? Will the source of the Hawver story even be investigated? Ironically, if you asked the commission, according to state statute, they shouldn’t be able to tell you if they are investigating the investigation or not!!!

Related:
KRA Blog: Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger
Kansas Liberty: Talking to press attracts Ethics Commission ire
Kansas Meadowlark: 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?
Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
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

A blog post by Americans for Prosperity is getting quite a bit of attention on the political blogosphere. The post proposes probable votes of Republican Senators in the recent leadership elections.

It wasn’t the attention the post gathered that I found interesting, rather it was the lack of attention from any Kansas Senate member that I found interesting. Committee assignments left little doubt of who supported liberal leadership and who didn’t.

Julia Lynn was first elected by precinct leaders to replace former Sen. Kay O’Connor two years ago. This November was her first general election to the Kansas Senate.

Lynn’s campaign was infused with thousands of dollars from the Senate Leadership PAC. This is the same PAC that infused $45,000 into KTRM to fund their KKK press releases and their mailers against Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook saying she didn’t want parents to be able to get help for their sick children.

Lynn describes herself as a conservative and has a pro-life voting record. So why Sen. Lynn has decided to associate herself with this crowd is a little confusing. Is power so greatly desired by some that they’re willing to do anything to get it?

When asked by Kansas Liberty why she cast her vote for liberals, Lynn just flat out lied.

“What I looked at was how much experience they had with the budget and their breadth of knowledge, and the current leadership obviously had a depth of operational knowledge.”

This is the same leadership team that refuses to rule out tax increases to fix the state’s budget crisis. This is the same leadership team that oversaw massive spending increases the past four years. This is the same leadership team that allowed the budget to get where it is in the first place!

Julia, just tell the truth. They bought your seat with Senate Leadership PAC money and now you have to pay them back. Politics would be so much nicer if people just told the truth.

Now, here’s the part I don’t understand.

“Contrary to popular belief, Derek Schmidt is an extremely capable, conservative Republican, and I think our current leadership team knows what we need to do.”

Huh? Schmidt a conservative? The leadership team knows what to do? They can’t rule out tax increases, but they know what to do?

Barnett was probably the biggest surprise. Conservative Susan Wagle was his running mate just two years ago but Barnett decided not to vote for her.

Unlike Lynn, Barnett has a record of leadership roles for conservative causes, most notably during the 2007 session when the now all-too-apparent-fatally-flawed gambling bill was passed.

It’s these outspoken roles and votes in the past that make his leadership vote so confusing. It doesn’t make sense why you would vote for a team that will use their power to stop legislation that you want passed. What good is a chairmanship if leadership won’t allow a floor vote?

Leadership votes will be hard to explain to conservative activists, especially if Barnett chooses to try for higher office again. This is especially true when you look at the quality of candidates conservatives have for Governor (Sam Brownback) and in the first congressional district (Tim Huelskamp.)

Now you know how I feel.

I began with the Kansas City Star’s Primebuzz blog, then I moved to the Lawrence Journal-World, The Topeka Capital Journal and others. And it couldn’t have been more plain from the headlines I was reading…man, what a beating Phill Kline took today.

For instance, I began with this headline, “KS court blisters Kline” where I was told, “It’s one of the most blistering opinions delivered in memory, according to The Star’s legal reporter.”

Then I moved to the Journal-World, “Supreme Court blisters Kline, orders return of abortion clinic records.” The first paragraph said it all, “The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday ordered Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline to turn over copies of patients’ medical records from an abortion clinic he is prosecuting.”

KSN in Wichita, “The Kansas Supreme Court orders Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline to turn over abortion patients’ medical records.”

As I continued on my ‘mainstream’ media tour, it was more of the same.

Finally, I turned to my emailed headline from Kansas Liberty, “Despite opinion’s scathing language, DA Kline can keep copies of abortion records.”

Based on the scathing language directed toward Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline in an opinion issued by the Kansas Supreme Court this morning, it might seem easy to conclude that Kline not only suffered a legal defeat, but that he disgraced the offices in which he served during an investigation of Planned Parenthood.

But, cutting through the criticism and innuendo contained in the majority opinion, written by Justice Carol A. Beier, it appears the ruling actually favored Kline on the law.

Beier wrote: “The above analysis leads us to the conclusion that [Planned Parenthood] and the Attorney General are not entitled to the primary relief they seek. We will not force Kline to disgorge ‘each and every copy’ of the patient records Kline and his subordinates have made ‘and any and all other evidence Kline developed and obtained while he was acting as Attorney General that he took with him to Johnson County’.”

Then, I turned to KAKE Channel 10 from Wichita. What I read there made me think two different rulings from rival courts had been passed down today.

“Supreme Court Denies Contempt Proceedings Against Phill Kline”

The Supreme Court denied an abortion clinic’s petition for contempt proceedings against former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline on Friday, but the court granted other relief and sanctioned Kline for his handling of the clinic’s patient records.

What a difference some perspective gives.

It’s amazing what a loaded headline and a writers slant will do to your understanding of the facts. As I read headlines proclaiming that the records must be “returned” to the AG’s office, I found myself thinking that Kline had lost, the records had to be returned, and the case was over.

It was amazing. I continued to think this even as I read, in story after story, that only copies had to be turned over. It wasn’t a return of records, it was a copy and supply of records.

I have to admit, it never fully sunk in until I got to the Kansas Liberty and KAKE 10 stories.

How many people do you think never got around to reading those articles?

Today isn’t a defeat for Phill Kline. Today is a defeat for a free and responsible press and an informed public.

Umbarger filed finance reports in late July for the primary election cycle where he showed using campaign funds to build a carport. He claimed that the expense was valid because he needed a place to store his campaign materials. However, photos taken of the new building showed only half walls with the bottom portion open to the elements and, surprise surprise, no campaign materials.

A day later, Umbarger filed an amended report returning the funds.

Umbarger’s finance report also shows quite a bit of funny money being spent with hundreds of dollars spent on fuel within a two or three day time period. His October filing shows multiple reimbursements for the fuel because of a Commission advisory that the expenditures were illegal, issued back in 2007, before his purchases.

I guess it’s okay to break the law as long as you fix it…sometime. I’m curious what the statutes say about how long you have to break a campaign finance law without ‘fixing it’ before there’s action on the part of the Commission.

What hasn’t been answered is how the information about the closed investigation got out in the first place. Neither the Commission or the candidate being investigated is supposed to speak publicly during an investigation, but I’m not sure what restrictions there are after an investigation has ended.

How does the state of Kansas benefit by having an unelected Commission decide who’s fined and who isn’t? How do citizens benefit from closed door hearings and dismissal of relevant charges?

What does the future of our state budget look like if the Senate Ways and Means chairman can’t even be honest about the commingling of his personal and campaign accounts?

Related:

Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
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

The most important of these positions is by far that of the Senate President. Current Senate President Steve Morris has been more than a disappointment to all Kansans. Morris’ past four years have seen an average increase in state spending of more than 5% every year. Is it any wonder Kansas government is staring at a 2010 deficit of over $1 billion?

But Morris is more than a black eye to Kansas, he is a disappointment to all Republicans. During his time we’ve seen one of our Republican leaders quoted in the New York Times as having no other difference with Democrat Kathleen Sebelius than the blocked coal power plants.

“But that’s the only major disagreement we’ve had since she took office,” Mr. Morris said. “She knew she would have to work with Republicans when she came in, and she’s done pretty well doing that.”

Republicans deserve a leader who supports Republicans and not just the next meal ticket they think will bring more power to themselves.

He and Vice President John Vratil used their Senate Leadership PAC to further their quest for power, not for the benefit of Republicans fighting Democrats for Senate seats.

In fact, when Republican Senate candidates needed non-monetary help in defeating Democrats, they were met with praise for the Democrat.

Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, chairman of the judiciary committee, said hers (Greta Goodwin) was one of the key races that will determine the Senate leadership next year. Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, agreed.

Could the picture be more clear?

If re-elected, Morris promises more of the same. Experience seems to be the hot word of this election season, but is experience with higher taxes and more spending what Kansans really need during these tough budget times?

Of course not. What is needed is strong, conservative leadership offered by Senator Susan Wagle. Wagle has a record of being true to the taxpayers and not to those who put her in power.

Wagle was endorsed by the KRA for her re-election bid this past November and also earned our endorsement as a Lt. Governor candidate with Jim Barnett.

Susan Wagle is the clear choice for a new direction in Kansas.

I, for one, have no interest in a governor who’s nothing more than a surrogate of Obama looking for a ticket out of Kansas. And I definitely have no interest in a Republican leader who sells out his party for a ticket on the Sebelius express.

The race for Speaker of the House showcases two familiar candidates. Current Speaker Melvin Neufeld is seeking re-election but has been hounded by his inability to pass legislation authorizing the Holcomb power plants. He’s also getting significant heat for the passage of legislation in 2007 authorizing state-owned casinos in Kansas.

Rep. Mike O’Neal was endorsed by the KRA in his recent re-election bid to the House. Rep. O’Neal has a good record of being true to the taxpayer and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee has considerable experience with judicial appointments and the power of our courts. He also lead the charge against capitulation to the Supreme Court in their mandate to increase education funding.

With over 50% of the state budget going to K-12 education, it’s virtually impossible to cut state spending by $1 billion without a tax increase or education spending cuts. It’s not yet clear that the Supreme Court would intervene again, but with its past history, another mandate is likely. A strong Speaker is needed, and Rep. O’Neal fits the bill.

And the Democrat races? Well, not that we really care, but the Senate Minority Leader race is interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, we’re told all the time about the split in the Republican Party, but not much is said about the split within the Democrat Party. It was highlighted this past election season with the recruitment of Kelley Kultala against incumbent Democrat Mark Gilstrap. The media likes to talk about the recruitment of conservative candidates against ‘moderate’ Republicans, but for some reason didn’t see much interest in the recruitment of a liberal against a true moderate Democrat.

The race between current Minority Leader Hensley and Sen. Chris Steineger is also interesting because of Hensley’s relationship with Gov. Sebelius. Together, they decided to take out one of their own and spend thousands of party dollars to do it, while loosing a Senate seat. It will be interesting to see if other Democrat Senators agree with their strategy.

Related:

Kansas Liberty: O’Neal confident of unseating Neufeld
Kansas Liberty: How careful with your money are candidates for House, Senate leadership positions?
Kansas Liberty: Legislative leadership contests are ‘intimate and intense’
Kansas Liberty: Battle develops for top Democratic leadership post in Kansas Senate
Kansas Liberty: School spending cuts could set collision course with the Supreme Court
Wichita Liberty: Susan Wagle for Kansas Senate President
Topeka Capital Journal: Lawmakers to vote on key House, Senate jobs
Salina Journal: Who will be state’s leaders?