Reading the KC Star

Headline - Kansas catches a revenue windfall

"Kansas lawmakers Tuesday found an additional $172 million that could solve - at least for this year - a Kansas Supreme Court mandate to add money to K-12 education." Lead sentence by Jim Sullinger, KC Star Reporter.

Legislative leaders said the new revenue projection would take the pressure off finding an additional $143 million to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirement for suitable financing of education. Well, now we know that the legislator's aversion isn't to spending money, just to raising taxes to collect more of it.

Reporter Sullinger continues, "The effort to address the court mandate could stall, however, if a large group of Republicans who want to defy the court order prevail." The house Speaker, Doug Mays, says a majority of the 83 Republicans do not want to appropriate any more money for schools. A "Take Back Our Constitution" rally is scheduled for 1 P.M. Saturday at the Capitol to protest "Judicial activism that threatens our democracy." The protesters, mostly Christian Right activists, apparently haven't read the Kansas Constitution, particularly, these provisions:

"The judicial power of this state shall be vested exclusively in one court of justice, which shall be divided into one supreme court, district courts, and such other courts as are provided by law…"

"The supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in proceedings in quo warranto, mandamus, and habeas corpus; and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.

"The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state."

"The people have the right to assemble, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, for the redress of grievances."

or the provisions of state law, i.e.,

K.S.A. 60-2101. The supreme court shall have jurisdiction to correct, modify, vacate or reverse any act, order or judgment of a district court or court of appeals in order to assure that any such act, order or judgment is just, legal and free of abuse. An appeal from a final judgment of a district court in any civil action in which a statute of this state or of the United States has been held unconstitutional shall be taken directly to the supreme court.

Could the state constitution and state law be any clearer?

The Supreme Court is the agency of the state that decides questions of the constitutionality of legislative enactments. The Legislature is responsible for providing "suitable finance of the educational interests of the state". If people have a grievance (i.e. unsuitable finance of the educational interests of the state), and they establish to the satisfaction of a court that the grievance is valid (i.e., schools are inadequately or inappropriately funded), then the Legislature's job is to redress the grievance as directed by the courts. It is not up to a legislator to complain that the Supreme Court is over-stepping its bounds, when clearly, it is not. It is within the province of the courts to determine what is suitable and what is not. The legislature is not the final authority in determining suitability. If, to preserve a given tax structure, a legislator wishes schools would spend less or that other state functions receive less so schools can have more, then it is the legislator's job to propose ways to achieve his or her policy preferences, not to ignore the rule of law. If a legislator can't do his or her job within the legal framework provided, then they should resign from office. A legislature beholden only to itself, in between elections, is the real threat to our democracy.



Headline - Move would boost parents' say in sex classes

"Some state Board of Education members want to make it easier for parents to keep their children out of sex education class."
Lead sentence by David Klepper, KC Star reporter.

Board member John Bacon (Olathe Republican) proposed an "opt-in" system where parents give permission for their children to attend sex education classes. Bacon's self-stated goal is maximum parental control and avoidance of sex issues and activities objectionable to some parents.

Cynthia Akagi, KU health education professor and chair of the health education curriculum panel, said students who need sex education the most might be least likely to get a signed permission slip from their parents.

Although Bacon would not unequivocally deny exposure of his children to sex education ("I may not want my child to be exposed to that.", he appears quite willing to create a burden for parents who have no qualms about sex education.

The KC Star also reported that board members asked if schools could send parents a list of sex education topics. Is the board elected to micro-manage local school districts?

(See my previous entry of May 28, 2005, regarding sex education. It appears this may be the next hot topic for the KSBE. Gee, what does the bible have to say about sex education?)