The fifth week is proving to be one where the main issues are immigration, budgets and energy. Both houses are holding hearings that will have an impact on the way we deal with these very complex issues.
On the floor of the house Wednesday of this week; debates were conducted on township governance and their cash reserve fund (HB 2749), child custody and parenting time relating to military deployment or mobilization (HB 2621), and when law enforcement can request drug or alcohol testing following a severe or fatal auto crash, HB2617.
As I have told you in previous updates we hear a lot of testimony in committee on many bills that are presented that for one reason or another never get to the full house for debate. Some are just not a very significant issue or are amended into another existing bill. Some are even topics that have been around for many years and just need “tweaked” to conform to federal statutes.
An example would be today in Commerce and Labor we heard testimony on HB 2771 concerning age discrimination statute K.S.A.44-1112 and 44-1118. To bring us into compliance with the federal statute we needed a language change that stated “persons attaining the age of 40 or above”. Seems simple enough and the reason for the amendment was; somehow Kansas had a statute that indicated the “definition of age, means an age of 18 or more years”. Seems unlikely an 19 year old would claim age discrimination when he/she was replaced with a 18 year old.
For my Wednesday schedule I have separate meetings with members of the VFW and American Legion, the Board of Regents, and USD 490 Superintendent Sue Givens and board member, Leon Leachman. I started the morning off with a Legislative Post Audit Meeting on the results of a school audit on how we authorized a second head count in February identify additional students of military personnel who came in after the first count in September.
We heard a presentation on the audit of the state’s financial position which mainly said we are at least keeping accurate books. From the size of the organization there were no remarkable violations of accounting. There was never any discussion on the appropriateness of expenditures only that the balance sheet shows adherence to accepted accounting principles.
The proposed state employee pay plan has certainly jumped on the front burner. A study was conducted and determined there are about 22,000 state employees and many of these people make less salary doing their job for the state than their counterparts in the civilian community do.
There is a proposal that would work to correct these inequities. The state employee’s job description would be evaluated to insure they are in the proper classification and determine how much of an inequity in pay exists. To bring all the employees up to par will require additional funding close to the tune of $700 million over 5 years.
Partial source of these additional funds could comes from elimination of the current longevity pay and redirecting the proposed 2.5 percent across the board raises recommended by the governor for FY 2009. The net effect is that the pay will be increased for practically everyone. The only exception would be for an employee that through the evaluation phase is identified as already at par with his/her counterpart.
I have been bombarded by very vocal constituents that have been told a story that does not have all the facts presented. This whole issue is still in committee and is being worked on by a bipartisan group of legislators and representatives from employee organizations. My comment to the various organizations that represent these employees is simply to stir-up dissension by incomplete mis-statements, serves no positive end. Nothing has been decided as yet.
When we get farther along with this issue I will pass on the facts as they come to light.
In one of my budget committee meeting we were discussing funding. Seems the governor has created a new source of funding from the expanded lottery revenues. This is money that is expected to be available when the casinos and slot machines get placed in the various locations around Kansas. We have not heard from the supreme court that the expanding gaming is even constitutional. The source of these funds (estimate $80.7 million) does not exist.
Developing a budget using the fees from an non existing source is something I am not willing to commit to. I compare this to expecting an inheritance from a rich uncle that is on his death bed, so you go out and buy a car. Then the uncle does not die, the money is not there but you still have to pay for the car. I do not want to head down that road.
There are many issues and if you have a issue or a special interest please let me know and I will follow-up with what is happening in relation to your request.
I appreciate you contacting me I do want to know what you think. I consider it an honor and privilege to serve you in Topeka. Thanks, John.
Back to Updates
