The Wichita Eagle, May 25
Taking the next steps in school security
Kentucky, Florida, Maryland, California, Texas and, on Friday morning, Indiana.
Those are states in 2018 where a student or former student has gone to school with a gun and shot others.
Kansas, thankfully, is not on the list. The state has been fortunate not to have a school shooting involving the death of a student or staff member since 1985.
But that gives Kansans no sense of security in a time where news of another school shooting elicits reactions of “Where now?” just as often as “How senseless.”
It’s time to ask ourselves whether our schools are ready when a student with mental-health problems wants to open fire against classmates. Up to now, districts have seemingly been diligent in acknowledging a shooting is possible in any school and have taken measures to lessen the chances.
But Columbine and Sandy Hook and Parkland and Santa Fe keep occurring - at schools that think they’re ready when violence happens - and at a rate that makes it time to take a next step.
School districts owe it to their students and families to go beyond what they’ve ever done in terms of school safety. It’s sometimes said schools shouldn’t resemble prisons. But maybe it’s time.
This needs to be a coordinated effort, with voices from all levels. Governor to school board members. Superintendents to part-time paraprofessionals. Middle school students, high school students, alumni who went through 13 years of school buildings and relationships with classmates.
Law enforcement knows best and worst practices. Parents worry about school safety as much as anyone. Business leaders may have innovations that can work in schools. Everyone needs a voice.
? The conversation is about people inside the schools. More counselors and psychologists, early school budget victims when times are tight, are needed to identify and help students who have signs of mental-health problems. They are the people most capable of catching early the troubles a school shooter can display.
Teachers and students should hold more active-shooter drills. These have become more important than fire or tornado reminders.
Students should receive more encouragement in reporting classmates who exhibit signs of trouble. After the Columbine killings in 1999, the state of Colorado in 2004 opened the “Safe2Tell” hotline that gave students, parents and teachers a place to make anonymous tips about threats, bullying and possible suicides. Now a smartphone app, the hotline had 9,163 reports during the 2016-17 school year. (The Wichita school district has a text version.)
More trained professionals - school resource officers and security guards - may be needed, and should be armed. Not teachers.
? The conversation is about school buildings themselves. Districts have performed upgrades to security such as video cameras, secure entrances and systems that require visitors to check in with a driver’s license. Other policy changes, such as locking dozens of doors so only one entrance is accessible, are now common.
It’s now time to talk about next steps. Metal detectors are used in New York, Los Angeles and some other big-city districts, bringing a sense of security but also a message of an unwelcome environment for students and visitors. Are we to the point they should be in Kansas?
? The conversation is about cost. Adding anything to a safety program will bring price tags of varying weights to school districts. As the Kansas Supreme Court examines the Legislature’s new school funding formula, finding additional money for school safety will be hard - but should be a priority.
? The conversation is about guns. Even if no action is taken at the state or federal level to reduce availability of semi-automatic weapons, guns available in a child’s home are repeatedly an issue.
A student gaining access to others’ guns in the home is a large part of the path to school shootings. The Parkland and Santa Fe shootings included components where the shooter was given guns by parents or the shooter had access to a parent’s guns. Stricter punishment of parents would act as a deterrent.
? The conversation is about who leads the conversation. Voters hold the key this fall and should look for candidates who advocate solutions, not rest on protecting gun rights. Stricter universal background checks. Pushing for legislation that would allow the Centers for Disease Control to pick up its study on mass shootings.
Small legislative improvements, without taking away anyone’s guns, are possible and more realistic.
_____
The Kansas City Star, May 24
Why has Kansas government authorized 1,000 no-bid contracts? Taxpayers deserve answers
Kansas lawmakers should demand a thorough review of the state’s rules for awarding no-bid, sole-source contracts.
That message is clear from recent reporting in The Star and Wichita Eagle. During the past eight years, Kansas has authorized $550 million to buy products and services without competitive bids.
The purchases include technical services, consultants’ advice, software, fuel, even groceries. State officials have approved no-bid purchases more than 1,000 times.
There is no indication of illegality in the purchases, which must first go through an obscure process called “prior authorization.” But half a billion dollars is a lot of money. Taxpayers deserve to know if they’re getting the best deals possible.
“It’s the dark underbelly of politics,” said state Rep. Jan Kessinger of Overland Park, a Republican and a member of the Appropriations Committee.
“When you get all these sole sources of supply, or no-bid contracts, that’s just not a good way for the public to have their business conducted,” he said.
To be clear: On occasion, all public officials need flexibility to purchase goods and services quickly without a formal bid process. Buying clean-up services after a small flood or fire is a good example.
Seeking bids on low-cost items can sometimes be complicated and counterproductive.
That isn’t the case here. The data analyzed includes only no-bid purchases of more than $100,000 - a threshold far in excess of any need for speed or convenience in state government.
Some of the no-bid deals include consultant contracts, which deserve special scrutiny.
There may be circumstances in which one firm has a specific expertise that precludes the need for bids. Yet as Kessinger points out, that claim could easily be abused: A state official could simply draw contract requirements to satisfy only one favored bidder, precluding other companies from seeking the work.
That’s why no-bid contracts must be publicized and open to public review. Under current law, no-bid deals in excess of $100,000 must be posted a mere week before the contract is awarded.
That simply isn’t enough time.
Requiring bids isn’t red tape or mere paperwork. It’s a process that leads to the lowest cost and the best possible quality. Competition is the essence of best practices for government purchases, a concept that Kansas officials - and all public bodies - should remember.
(That includes the federal government, which recently awarded a $10 billion contract to Cerner without a normal bidding process.)
We wish we could ask the state auditor to review the no-bid practices of Kansas government. But sadly, Kansas lawmakers declined to put a state auditor position on the ballot this year.
Perhaps their goal is to prevent anyone from digging too deeply into the state’s purchasing practices.
Lawmakers will have to demand answers on the public’s behalf.
Reporting has once again revealed a problem in the way Kansas does business. Its representatives should begin the repair work as quickly as possible.
____
The Emporia Gazette, May 25
Lack of transparency is unhealthy
Last week, The Emporia Gazette filed a complaint with the Lyon County Attorney’s Office about the Flint Hills Community Health Center closing its meetings to the public and possibly breaking the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
On Thursday, The Gazette published a story discussing the issue with Lyon County commissioners and what appeared to be their uneasiness about the situation.
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman is currently investigating and will eventually make a decision on the complaint. We do know Goodman has looked into the matter when the health center brought the issue of closing meetings forward. It would not be a surprise if Goodman came back and said the meetings can be closed due to some maneuvering in the 2014 contract that would exempt the center from public meetings.
The Flint Hills Community Health Center may have the right to close its meetings to the public, but that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.
Lyon County Commissioners give the Flint Hills Community Health Center almost half a million dollars of taxpayer money a year with virtually no checks and balances. The only real check and balance was the public meeting they held.
Lyon County Commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to protect taxpayers and taxpayer money which they dispense for goods and services.
If the health center is unwilling to re-open board meetings and comply with Kansas Open Meeting laws - which is in the best interest of taxpayers and the community - then Lyon County commissioners need to protect taxpayers and move to cancel their contract with the Flint Hills Community Health Center. They could then move services back under the county or put it out to a public bid to an entity that will allow transparency.
The current contract does allow for contract modifications and, in light of the current situation, Lyon County Commissioners would be well served to enact changes to allow more transparency and accountability. The 2012 contract had a line item stating the Flint Hills Community Health Center would comply with Kansas Open Meetings laws, and we would suggest that commissioners add that back into the contract as a stipulation to receive taxpayer money.
Things appear to be in disarray at the Flint Hills Community Health Center and alarms should be sounding for Lyon County Commissioners. A real indicator for commissioners should have been when they were educated their presence wasn’t needed at board meetings anymore. Lyon County Commissioner Dan Slater said he did not feel right about being discouraged from attending the meetings, and rightfully so.
We can’t imagine what the Flint Hills Community Health Center is trying to hide that it doesn’t even want someone partially responsible for $450,000 a year in funding to hear or be involved with its board.
The community is lacking trust in the Flint Hills Community Health Center, and being transparent is a way to slowly build some trust back.
If the Flint Hills Community Health Center wants to keep its doors locked to public meetings, then Lyon County Commissioners need to find another organization that can fulfill the community services with transparency and accountability to taxpayers.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.