Recent Kansas Editorials

The Hutchinson News, Dec. 30

State mandates expensive alternative to guns in public buildings

Reno County had to spend considerable taxpayer money to keep guns out of its courthouse - belying the usual aversion of conservative Kansas lawmakers to government mandates and unnecessary spending.

Not when it comes to guns. The Kansas Legislature a couple of years ago changed the law mandating concealed carry of firearms be allowed in public buildings unless specific security is in place to ensure no weapons are brought in.

The county needed better security for its courtroom anyway, but the law precipitated spending $404,000 to secure its main entrance and $120,000 a year going forward to employ armed security guards. The entrance was completed and security measures went into effect on Tuesday. All other entrances to the courthouse have been closed to public access.

That deals with the issue at the courthouse. Not desiring to spend the money at its other public buildings, however, the county must allow concealed carry of firearms at locations such as the new courthouse annex where most other county offices have moved.

The county can prohibit open carry of firearms, so you can’t walk into one of these buildings with a pistol on a holster, but you can have a gun in a pocket or purse. Go figure.

So it goes in a political environment that panders to the extremes of the gun-rights lobby. No matter one’s viewpoint on gun control, the reality is this is a mandate passed down by state government, and it is costing taxpayers dearly to maintain safety in places such as courtrooms where a gun-free zone is essential.

Next to feel the pain are state university and community college campuses. Come July 1, they, too, must go to similar lengths as Reno County has done at its courthouse or open campuses to concealed carry of firearms. Again, another state mandate to spend money or comply rather than allowing local discretion.

Few college administrators relish the idea of allowing people to carry guns into classroom buildings, but securing all those buildings is unrealistic. The tab for security at the Reno County Courthouse gives a good example of why.

_____

The Lawrence Journal-World, Dec. 28

There’s plenty of hard work ahead for a local legislator and the state in addressing an increasingly important issue.

Gov. Sam Brownback and the legislative leadership in Topeka are to be commended for making water a focus in the coming legislative session. And it’s encouraging that a Lawrence legislator - Republican state Rep. Tom Sloan - will play a key role by chairing the new Water and Environment Committee.

Water is a bipartisan issue. There is consensus across party lines that the water issues Kansas faces are serious. Drought, erosion and excessive usage pose long-term threats to Kansas’ aquifers, reservoirs and rivers.

Consider that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment says the Ogallala Aquifer in western Kansas is responsible for $2 billion a year in beef production and $1.75 billion a year in corn production and that the irrigated land above it is valued at roughly $5 billion. In eastern Kansas, reservoirs provide water to two-thirds of the state’s population. Those reservoirs are responsible for about 60 percent of the state’s electricity production.

If the state does nothing over the next 50 years, KDHE estimates 70 percent of the aquifer will be depleted and 40 percent of the irrigated land above it will no longer be able to support irrigation. In addition, the water supply in federal reservoirs will be 40 percent filled with sediment, and five of the seven basins that support reservoirs won’t be able to meet demand during a drought.

In the face of such sobering statistics there is little debate that Kansas faces serious challenges in ensuring all users - residential, commercial and agricultural - have adequate access to the water they need. But there is plenty of debate over exactly how to address the issues.

That’s where Sloan and the new Water and Environment Committee come in. The committee is expected to develop recommendations for funding a 50-year plan for managing that state’s water resources. The water management plan was developed by a blue-ribbon panel appointed in 2013 by Brownback.

Recommendations from the panel were issued in 2015. Among the steps in the plan were some that were relatively inexpensive such as encouraging farmers to switch to low-water crops and encouraging consumers to conserve water. But others, such as dredging silt out of federal reservoirs and creating additional lakes, could be significant expenses.

Estimates are that funding the water management plan will cost $150 million in the next three years. There will be no shortage of arguments about how to generate those funds or whether they will be made available at all. After all, the state faces a serious budget shortfall and funds designated for water resource management have, in the past, been used instead to shore up the budget.

It’s encouraging that the state is giving renewed attention to addressing water issues. Now, the hard work begins for Sloan and others in Topeka.

_____

The Salina Journal, Dec. 29

Address should be televised

With Kansas facing a painfully uphill financial battle, this year’s State of the State address from our sitting governor is significant.

But don’t expect to see Gov. Sam Brownback share his vision on television.

The state once featured televised broadcasts of the annual State of the State address, a tradition giving the governor an opportunity to address the condition of the state.

But as happened last year, the Jan. 10 State of the State will not be broadcast on TV and instead will be streamed on the governor’s website, governor.ks.gov.

Worse yet would be the 5 p.m. start time, when later in the evening would be a far more convenient time to watch.

With a budget crisis hurting Kansans in many ways, the governor should understand the need for more public engagement.

Instead, Brownback’s ultraconservative regime has consistently avoided open, public airing of controversial legislation and other topics.

The current plan for the State of the State also will downplay the response of legislative opponents, which should be scathing.

All involved should know a governor in a perpetual state of denial wouldn’t offer realistic solutions, anyway.

During last year’s speech, also in the midst of serious budget problems, Brownback claimed the “State of the State is strong . and Kansas is growing.”

Kansas has notable strengths, starting with its people, but fiscal health currently isn’t one of them. Lackluster job growth and other poor economic indicators prove the folly of the governor’s “trickle down” income tax-cut approach.

The state’s shortfall of $350 million this fiscal year, on track to balloon to more than $1 billion, is entirely self-inflicted.

Undeterred, Brownback still clings to the failed strategy, and even recently called the tax doctrine that has more than 330,000 small businesses paying no income tax a model for the nation.

“We pioneered this field,” he said.

Perhaps he meant deliberately shortchanging state programs, as he’s done, would propel Kansas backward to pioneer days.

When it’s time for the State of the State address, a cautionary tale will become yet another imaginary tale from the governor.

Too bad too few Kansans will be able to witness his latest show of political ineptitude.

_____

St. Joseph News-Press, Dec. 30

’Misgendering’ foolishness

Forgive us if we veer from political correctness to state the obvious: The relatively new word “misgendering” does not easily roll off most people’s lips.

Still, our struggles with this expression are modest. Much worse is the notion that mistaking a transgender person’s preferred gender is somehow an offense against humanity that requires proactive steps to head it off.

We find ourselves contemplating these issues because the University of Kansas in Lawrence prompts us to. KU library staff and any interested students can choose one of three buttons to wear to spell out their preferred gender pronouns.

Each button completes the sentence, “My pronouns are .” with one of three choices: “He him his,” ’’She her hers” or - for those who don’t identify as male or female - “They them theirs.”

Never mind that the plural “They” makes no grammatical sense in this usage. The bigger concern is that someone in the hierarchy of the university sees fit to equate an inclusive culture with one that finds fault with everyone who doesn’t adhere to a new doctrine of specified inclusive language.

A sign posted in the library advises “gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual.” It continues:

“Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns . Pronouns matter! Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful and invalidate someone’s identity.”

All of which should cause thoughtful people to ask: “In what universe?”

This is a fair response from people without a discriminatory bone in their body, people who would never purposely offend and who are not accustomed to being told their normal attempts at courtesy are not enough.

Our college campuses lately have invited criticism for attempts to create “safe spaces” and “safe zones” where certain forms of speech and certain conduct are restricted, so as not to offend or cause someone to feel distress. Telling people what pronouns are acceptable is another step in promoting an overly protective environment that in no way resembles the real world.

Worse, this university-sanctioned foolishness places the responsibility in the wrong place.

If someone is referred to by a gender pronoun they consider incorrect, why not politely call that to the attention of the person with whom they are communicating? No buttons needed, and no one needs to feel guilty because they committed the inexcusable act of “misgendering.”