The Lawrence Journal-World, March 30
End the secrecy on child deaths
A bill requiring the Kansas Department for Children and Families to release specific information in a timely manner when a child dies from abuse or neglect is a step in the right direction and should be approved.
The Kansas House gave first-round approval Wednesday to the bill, which would require DCF to disclose information about a child who dies of abuse or neglect within seven days of a request being filed under the Kansas Open Records Act.
The bill is in response to high-profile cases involving DCF and children who died from abuse and neglect, even after the agency had received reports about the child, as well as children who died while in custody of the state’s foster care system.
DCF would have to disclose the age and sex of the child, the date of the death, a summary of any previous reports of abuse or neglect the agency received involving the same child, along with the findings of such reports; and a description of any services DCF had provided to the child.
It would also require DCF to make the same kind of disclosure within seven days about any child who dies while in state custody, even if the death is from an accident.
Many of the incidents occurred during Phyllis Gilmore’s tenure as secretary of DCF. She resigned Dec. 1. Gina Meier-Hummel, of Lawrence, replaced Gilmore and sought the legislation.
“I know that child welfare has been an issue at the top of the mind for many of us over the last couple of years, and the last couple of sessions, and it is an important topic that needs further work,” said Rep. Blaine Finch, R-Ottawa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee. “But this is a step in the right direction.”
Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said that legislators need to continue working toward even more public disclosure in cases involving children.
“But given all of the circumstances here, this is a very good start,” Carmichael said. “And I think it’s reasonably crafted to eventually get us to where we need to be regarding what I believe to have been a pattern of secrecy and cover-up at DCF under a prior administration.”
Greater transparency is sorely needed and long overdue at DCF. Lawmakers should pass this legislation and continue working to further open records surrounding child deaths.
Topeka Capital-Journal, April 1
Decorum desirable for Kansas Senate
Recent reports of distasteful behavior among politicians serving in the Kansas Senate are not overly surprising. This is an election year, though not among those serving four-year Senate terms. Tensions are beginning to flare as the legislative session drags on and a deadline nears for fixing K-12 school finance.
References to the demented experiments conducted at concentration camps by infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele have been introduced by one senator, Steve Fitzgerald of Leavenworth, to describe research of aborted fetuses. Apparently, the senator did not have a better approach for his adopted proposal to ban state-sponsored medical research on the tissue of aborted fetuses.
Fitzgerald happens to be campaigning as a Republican for the open congressional seat in the 2nd District. His commentary enabled him to gain a bit more name recognition, though he conceded his reference to the Holocaust was “perhaps inflammatory rather than helpful.?
Voters can decide if Fitzgerald’s approach on the issue, and others, is appropriate. Nonetheless, decorum in the Kansas Senate is desirable, if not expected. Elected officials, after all, are designated by voters to comprehend issues and do so with a clear head in order to process the broad range of proposals considered by lawmakers.
Disagreement will always exist. Indeed, the inability to compromise has become a more persistent problem at all levels of government. Working through such conflict, however, requires that elected officials maintain poise and composure. Attempts to speak over each other, speak out of turn and speak with hurtful personal attacks undermine the legislative process.
Get it together, senators. The upcoming election, which includes six senators running for Congress or statewide offices, can wait. Now is the time for the Legislature to do its work, which includes a substantive measure on school finance that is constitutionally acceptable.
The Wichita Eagle, March 27
Teachers carrying guns are a mistake. Don’t do it, Kansas Legislature
Do most Kansans really want teachers to be armed in classrooms?
Should an elementary student be able to see her teacher’s 9 mm pistol in a side holster as the teacher leans over to help with a math problem? How about a high school student knowing his English teacher has a Glock in a lockbox in the closet?
We all want our students to be safe in school. But there are better ways to do it than to arm our teachers.
A House insurance committee heard testimony from both sides Tuesday in Topeka. A bill - with no author names, so much for transparency - would allow school districts to authorize teachers to train beyond a concealed-carry license and have a gun in the classroom in case of a mass shooting.
Proponents, including Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, and Rep. Blake Carpenter, R-Derby, said arming teachers would prevent another tragedy such as the one where 17 people were killed Feb. 14 in Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Florida.
Opponents, aided by hundreds of pieces of written testimony, emphasized teachers shouldn’t act as security officers in emergencies. They have enough on their hands throughout a school day.
The opponents are right. Too many things can go wrong with an armed teacher during the chaos of a mass shooting. Unless the teacher is a combat veteran or former law-enforcement professional, he or she will not have had nearly enough training to be ready for what could happen in a hallway or classroom.
Likewise, too many things can go wrong with a gun in a classroom even when there is no outside threat. Remember when state Rep. Willie Dove left a loaded gun in his desk in a committee meeting room in January 2017?
Stronger security is the better answer. The nation learned that firsthand in the past two months, when school security in Parkland failed to end the mass shooting and 17 died. A month later, a school resource officer in Great Mills, Maryland, needed only one minute to find and shoot an assailant just as he was shooting himself in the head. The boy’s former girlfriend was killed and another student was injured.
This bill shouldn’t be about having more guns in school, it should be about putting them in the hands of those with extensive training. It should be about putting them in the hands of those whose primary job is to protect children from those who would seek to hurt them. More resource officers and armed security are worth a conversation in many districts.
A section of the legislation defies logic. It would hold a school district negligent if it did not allow teachers to carry guns and a shooting occurred.
A district presumably knows what is best for its employees, students and parents, and shouldn’t be held liable in a mass shooting. Thankfully the bill’s supporters have said they would be willing to get rid of that provision if the bill gets out of committee. Please do.
Armed teachers are employed elsewhere in our country. Texas enacted a law - referenced in Tuesday’s committee hearing on the Kansas bill - that allows for a “marshal” teacher for every 400 students in a school.
But unlike the Texas law, the Kansas version doesn’t require background checks, psychological evaluations and active shooter training totaling 80 hours every two years. The House bill would require eight hours of training beyond a concealed carry license.
A Texas state representative told Politico that less than 50 districts have authorized the new marshals. There’s reason to think Kansas districts would also enact the law sparingly.
Another provision in the House bill could push parents to the point of pulling students out of school. Like Texas, the Kansas bill makes it a misdemeanor to disclose which teachers have guns at school. The logic is that a shooter with that information could target the teachers.
But any parent - pro-gun, anti-gun or no opinion - should have the right to know if their student’s teacher carries a gun. Parents should be able to decide if they’re comfortable with their child’s teacher carrying.
There are good ideas to make schools safer and resistant to mass shootings. Many ideas - cameras, secure entrances, visitor check-in systems and what-to-do training - are already in use by districts in the Wichita area and around Kansas.
Teachers carrying guns is not one of those good ideas.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.