Editorial Roundup: Kansas

Kansas City Star. March 12, 2021.

Editorial: Public must see the payout given to Overland Park cop who killed teen in his driveway

Did they somehow move Overland Park out of Kansas? And why didn’t they say anything when they did it?

The Star has asked for copies of severance agreements from two public entities: the University of Kansas and the city of Overland Park. KU readily released its severance agreement with former head football coach Les Miles - in fact, the very same day we asked for it, March 9, under the Kansas Open Records Act.

In contrast, the city of Overland Park has steadfastly refused to release its severance agreement with a former police officer who shot and killed 17-year-old John Albers in January 2018 - ironically as well as tragically, while checking on the teen’s welfare at his home. As the young man backed the family van out of the garage, the officer fired into the van, killing him. Police say the officer, Clayton Jenison, felt in danger. The family and others dispute that characterization.

Either way, the department severed its relationship with Jenison in an agreement signed back in February 2018 - though the reported $70,000 severance amount only came out last summer.

“I had absolutely no idea that it involved money until June 2020,” says John Albers’ mother, Sheila Albers. “Discovering the money is what made people start asking questions about the actual agreement.”

And yet, despite all that time and The Star’s requests for the agreement’s release and an October lawsuit demanding it under the state’s open records act, the city has refused.

The discrepancy between KU’s openness and Overland Park’s opaqueness is absurd.

A brief filed this week by The Star’s attorney argues that KU’s release of Les Miles’ severance agreement proves that such agreements by public entities are subject to mandatory public release under KORA.

“By providing The Star with a copy of the Miles agreement within hours of the

university’s receipt of The Star’s KORA request,” the Star’s brief says, “KU acknowledged that the Miles settlement agreement, and agreements like it, are open records under the Kansas Open Records Act.”

So, why is the severance agreement of a football coach at a state university made public, but the severance of a police officer, paid by taxpayers in Overland Park, apparently none of our business?

“I think that’s a good question,” says Overland Park City Councilman Paul Lyons, who chairs the Public Safety Committee. “I’ve never had a problem with releasing it. I wish there was a way for us to release it like KU did.”

Lyons adds that there’s nothing earthshaking in the agreement.

But the public doesn’t deserve assurances; it deserves proof.

One problem, Lyons says: Jenison signed the agreement with the expectation that it would remain private.

Problem solved: The courts should disabuse both the city and Jenison of that notion. Such agreements made with public entities should never be withheld from public view. That’s not how the government is supposed to work in this country, and it’s not the law under the Kansas Open Records Act.

If a public payout after the fatal shooting of a struggling young man during a welfare check is not the public’s business, then what is?

CORRECTION: This editorial has been updated with corrected details about how Les Miles was paid.

___

Lawrence Journal-World. March 13, 2021.

Editorial: Why KU should be more like K-State when it comes to athletics

It is probably not in the cards for Douglas Girod to ever be a very popular chancellor at the University of Kansas. Fate has put him in charge during a time when higher education faces enormous challenges, and the tasks of leadership require him to make some difficult and unpopular decisions.

Chances are, though, Girod will be a very consequential chancellor because of those decisions. He can go from consequential to transformative, if he asks even tougher questions. One of them ought to be: Why shouldn’t KU athletics be more like Kansas State athletics?

Now is the right time to ask those questions, as Girod gets ready to make his second hire of an athletic director in a period of less than three years. There are plenty of things we wouldn’t want to trade with K-State. There are some real messes in Manhattan. But even a quick look at the numbers shows Kansas State’s athletic department is winning in so many important ways compared to KU.

• K-State spent $79.7 million to run its athletic department in fiscal year 2020. KU spent $102.6 million. Why do schools in the same state and the same conference have such different spending levels? They are roughly the same size of athletic departments, with K-State having 361 student-athletes on scholarship and KU having 401. KU does have higher tuition - which athletic departments pay for their student-athletes - but not that much higher.

• K-State spent $16.9 million on salaries for athletic department administrators and support staff. KU spent $25.6 million. Let’s not overthink this. The Journal-World has reported on this difference for years, and KU has failed to produce answers for the differences. Now is the time for Girod to hold the department accountable. To be clear, these numbers don’t include coaching salaries. Those differences really aren’t that great: $17.7 million for KU and $15.9 million for K-State.

• K-State got zero dollars in direct financial support from the general university. KU got $1.3 million from the general university, despite severe budget challenges that are gripping the KU campus. Why can one school figure out how to live without such support and the other can’t?

• K-State finished fiscal year 2020 with athletic department revenues exceeding expenses by $6.6 million. KU finished the year with revenues exceeding expenses by just less than $15,000.

KU has some advantages over K-State, but they may be shrinking. KU fans may be surprised to learn K-State donors are nearing KU donors in terms of what they give the athletic department: $22.6 million for KU versus $20.3 million for K-State. KU’s national brand in basketball is still an advantage. It shows in ticket revenue. KU can charge a premium for basketball tickets. Even with poor football ticket sales, KU’s ticket revenue is $17.7 million versus $14.5 million for K-State.

But where KU’s advantage really shows is in sponsorships. Its national brand in basketball has landed it a much larger athletic apparel deal than K-State. The licensing category totals $11.3 million for KU versus $2.1 million for K-State. For the most part, that’s the Adidas money KU gets. (Yes, it does come with some headaches, but that’s a topic for another day.)

That’s a big difference, but a bigger difference is Kansas Athletics has a philosophy of spending nearly every dollar it gets while K-State does not. Despite that philosophy, KU has still fallen well short of accomplishing what it has wanted to, as the state of the football program can attest.

Now is the time to change the thinking. There are any number of ways to do it. Committing to get administrative salaries more in line would be a good start. An even better start would be for Girod to become a champion for sanity in the world of college athletics. Stand up to his counterparts in the Big 12 and elsewhere and speak passionately about ending a system that puts no meaningful limits on how much a university will spend on athletics. That’s a bad system in a day when universities like KU are having to cut academic programs to the bone.

KU is fortunate to have an athletic program that collects more than $100 million a year in revenue. But its neighbor is proving you don’t have to spend $100 million a year to run an athletic program. Think of the possibilities if KU can keep its revenue but lower its expenses. The result could be the athletic department providing money to directly help academics.

It will require Girod to be bold and to ruffle powerful feathers. But he already is having to make tough choices, which he deserves credit for doing. Just make one more and become transformative.

The slogan doesn’t fit with KU’s Adidas sponsorship, but it is wise nonetheless: Just do it.

___

Topeka Capital-Journal. March 12, 2021.

Editorial: Bill would change the ways evidence is collected in sexual assault cases. HB 2228 should be made Kansas law.

Victims of sexual violence should be able to report crimes in a way that promotes their healing in addition to meeting the needs of law enforcement.

A new bill would make important changes to the way evidence is collected in sexual assault cases. HB 2228 is smart policy that Kansas needs to better protect victims and hold offenders accountable.

The bill comes on the heels of a backlog of over 2,200 untested rape kits that became public knowledge in 2017. Following a concerted effort driven by the Kansas Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI), the backlog was eliminated in 2019.

Subsequent investigation found the kits had gone untested for a wide range of reasons but often came down to a case being difficult to prosecute or a victim choosing not to participate in the legal process after reporting.

These barriers to prosecution are incredibly common in sexual assault cases, in which victims experience significant trauma. However, untested kits represent a loss of critical information. Even if the DNA evidence doesn’t further prosecution of the case in which it was collected, it can link cases together to identify serial rapists and help prevent future rapes.

The new bill would prevent a future backlog by requiring law enforcement agencies to send all sexual assault kits for testing within 30 days. Even if cases aren’t prosecuted, DNA from the kits would be stored in a federal system and checked against matches across the United States.

The bill also extends the time DNA from some sexual assault kits is stored. Since 2009, victims of rape in Kansas have had the option of having a sexual assault kit collected anonymously, with no report to law enforcement. The kits were then held by the KBI for five years, able to be used to support a later report if the victim chose to make one.

The new bill would require storing the kits for 20 years. This piece of the legislation makes sense, given that in 2013, Kansas eliminated the statute of limitations for sexual assault. Victims should have as long as possible to come forward and have evidence preserved.

The final part of the bill allows child advocacy centers to be a site for sexual assault exams in addition to the medical facilities where such exams currently take place. This piece of the legislation helps ensure vulnerable children are served in the best possible environment. One can imagine the fear of a child enduring a medical exam to investigate sexual assault.

At the very least, such exams should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals in a safe, child-friendly setting.

Legislators should put Kansas law to work for victims, helping provide them additional options for reporting sexual assault, in the hopes that perpetrators see justice.

END