How Kansas lawmakers came to agree on a plan to keep schools open

When nearly every member of the Kansas Legislature voted for a plan to fix equity in school funding on June 24, it was a win for bipartisan diplomacy over the more common trench warfare in Topeka.

Some lawmakers had started the month ready to defy a Kansas Supreme Court order to make school funding equitable. But by the time they returned to Topeka, momentum had quietly begun to build toward a solution.

Lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle worked together – and with school officials – to craft a plan that was accepted by the court last week, ensuring schools will remain open.

The process has given some lawmakers hope for continued cooperation next year when the Legislature writes a new school finance formula.

“We worked together with really no regard to party and with no regard to who was going to get the credit or who would end up with political advantage,” said Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita. “And we got to a result that everyone agreed to and that was very good for my school district.”

“... I hope that it bodes well for the future, because when we start to build these relationships of trust across party lines … those are the types of relationships, I think, that will serve us well when we confront some much bigger problems.”

But the deal also has raised transparency concerns. Many lawmakers say they aren’t sure how the agreement was brokered since so much of the negotiations took place behind closed doors.

“If all of the decisions are made off of the floor and out of the committee room, how will we ever know who decided what, who supported what?” said Rep. Stephanie Clayton, R-Overland Park.

Clayton pointed to the quick reversal by Johnson County superintendents, who supported a plan that cut their funding after calling on lawmakers earlier not to do that.

“My constituents don’t know and I don’t know why they changed their minds,” Clayton said.

Shawnee Mission Superintendent Jim Hinson said he had pushed for a “hold harmless” provision but agreed to support a bill without that to prevent a shutdown of schools.

“For a short-term fix, not to be dealing with who knows what today,” Hinson said on the first day of July.

Here’s how Kansas went from facing a possible statewide shutdown of schools to consensus on a plan over the course of five days, based on interviews with lawmakers, school officials and lobbyists who were involved in the negotiations.

Monday: Superintendents, lawmakers meet

Six school superintendents gathered in Topeka to meet with the Legislature’s budget chairmen, Rep. Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, and Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, at the urging of Education Commissioner Randy Watson.

Among them: John Allison of Wichita and Cynthia Lane of Kansas City, Kan., both from districts suing the state over school funding.

Also there: Johnson County superintendents, who agreed to drop their push to not lose any money in a solution. The so-called “hold harmless” provision would have increased the cost of the bill by at least $12 million and, lawyers said, put the state on shakier legal ground.

The Johnson County superintendents “were so concerned that the court would actually take a heavy hand and close the schools” that they decided to concede the issue, Masterson said.

Still to be resolved was how to pay for the $38 million needed to address the court’s equity order when the state faced a budget deficit.

School officials suggested various funding sources and kept hearing the same response: “Not available. Can’t do it. Not available,” said David Smith, spokesman for the Kansas City, Kan., district.

Masterson said he suggested going over all 286 districts’ budgets to find cost savings.

The superintendents rejected that. Instead, they suggested an across-the-board $13 million cut to general education aid, Masterson said.

It’s an idea that would cause controversy for much of the week. That it came from the superintendents has not previously been reported.

Smith said the districts had suggested an across-the-board local property tax increase to pay for the equity fix but were told that wouldn’t happen. That’s when the superintendents said “if all you’re going to do is cut, then cut across the board” to ensure fairness, he said.

Masterson said all the superintendents present agreed to the plan that day. That has been disputed by Allison and Lane.

What is clear, however, is that by the next afternoon both Wichita and Kansas City were exploring other options.

Tuesday: Seeking support

The next day, Lane presented the proposal to the Wyandotte County legislative delegation, primarily made up of Democrats who were reluctant to support it. Most of the equity fix would go to property tax relief, which made the cut to classroom dollars hard to justify.

Rep. Kathy Wolfe Moore, D-Kansas City, told Lane to consult her lawyers.

Those lawyers – Alan Rupe and John Robb – hated the plan and told their clients not to back it.

Wichita nearly backed away from the negotiations. It took Carmichael, a Democrat, to help persuade the district to stay at the table, several Republicans said.

He called Lynn Rogers, a member of the Wichita school board. Rogers said board members began talking – though they did not call an official meeting – about giving Allison permission to support the plan with the across-the-board cut as a last resort.

Back in the Kansas City area, Wolfe Moore began reaching out to moderate Republicans. Democrats had unveiled their own plan the week before, but moderates had also quietly been working on one.

Rep. Melissa Rooker, R-Fairway, called superintendents, trying to build support for a moderate plan – though she avoided calling it that – that would use money from the state’s tobacco settlement and other sources instead of cutting general school aid.

Lane agreed to share both the moderate and the Democratic plans with other superintendents at a meeting of the United School Administrators of Kansas the next day.

Wednesday: No stance

The school administrators reviewed all three plans at their Wednesday meeting in Topeka, the day before lawmakers returned for the special session. They decided the organization would not take a stance on any of the plans.

In Wichita, Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, a close ally of Ryckman, met with Allison and came to an agreement. Allison would support the plan that included the across-the-board cut as a last resort. Hutton would keep searching for other money.

Thursday: Pivotal moments

Although momentum seemed to be building for the plan that cut general aid for all districts, by Thursday things were starting to shift.

Lane pressed lawmakers to explore other options that were floating around the building. She also called other superintendents.

“Cynthia Lane did a yeoman’s job,” Wolfe Moore said. “She reached out to a lot of those small school districts that weren’t included in the original meeting and got them a little more fired up about this.”

Moderates courted Democrats, asking them to support Rooker’s plan if it came to the House floor as an amendment.

Then, at a meeting of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Ron Highland, R-Wamego, asked whether the $25 million expected from selling the Kansas Bioscience Authority could be used as a funding source for the school finance fix. He was told it couldn’t – it was already being used in the budget.

But a light bulb went off for Hutton.

He turned to Ryckman and suggested that any surplus money from the Bioscience Authority sale should go to schools. He bounced the idea off Allison in a hallway.

Ryckman presented the idea to Senate leaders, who were initially cold to it. They didn’t want to spend new money. They wanted to stick with the deal brokered earlier in the week.

Bill Brady, the lobbyist for Schools for Fair Funding, which represents the districts suing the state, approached Ryckman and indicated those districts could support a bill if it dropped the $13 million cut to classroom aid.

Support from the plaintiffs would remove the threat of a legal challenge and make it more likely the court would accept it.

At a 4 p.m. House GOP caucus meeting, it became apparent that the plan that cut funding for all districts was in trouble.

Moderates objected that it would cut classroom funding after years of GOP leaders calling for more money to go to classrooms. They said it also could run afoul of the court’s directive to not hurt overall school funding while making it equitable.

“That was a game-changing moment,” Rooker said.

It was unclear whether GOP leaders had the 63 votes needed to pass the bill. It was even more unclear how the seven judges would rule on it.

Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, an attorney, told Ryckman to remove any doubt and find a way to pay for the final $13 million. The certainty would be worth the money.

Friday: Votes before midnight

Rooker’s plan – the one that relied on tobacco settlement money and other sources – began to dominate the discussion on social media. But behind the scenes, Ryckman and Hutton were talking alternatives with Wichita and other plaintiff districts.

They met with Brady and Diane Gjerstad, the lobbyist for the Wichita school district, Friday morning.

The plaintiffs wanted the $13 million from the Bioscience Authority guaranteed, regardless of whether the sale price surpassed $25 million. That stood little chance of passing in the Senate, given the state’s finances.

Ryckman asked for more time to broker the deal. But Senate leadership wanted to wrap things up quickly and began weighing passage of a bill with the $13 million cut in order to force the House to accept it.

“There was definitely some pressure there to move forward,” Masterson said.

Many senators wanted to add school choice policy amendments if the House passed a bill that spent too much money, he said.

Ryckman consulted with Wolfe Moore and Carmichael throughout the day, trying to gauge what plan could get Democratic support.

“All of us shared the common cause of preventing the court from closing schools,” Ryckman said. “It required the broadest coalition possible.”

The plaintiffs offered a compromise at midday.

They would accept any surplus money from the Bioscience sale but wanted to use the K-12 extraordinary needs fund as a backup, an idea from the Democrats’ plan. They also agreed to file documents in court saying the bill satisfied the equity requirement.

Ryckman approached Rooker and Rep. Blaine Finch, R-Ottawa, on the floor of the House and asked if moderates could get behind the plan. Yes, they said.

Shortly after Ryckman unveiled the plan, the three main factions in the House – conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans and Democrats – expressed support.

It still was short $5 million if the Bioscience money missed the mark. Masterson suggested tapping the Kansas Department of Transportation’s motor vehicle fee fund.

The Senate would not vote until it received a signed letter from Schools for Fair Funding’s lawyers agreeing not to contest the bill – “to make sure we had a 99.9 percent chance that it was over on equity,” Masterson said.

The sun was still up when lawmakers voted on the bill – unusual in Topeka, where votes on major legislation often take place after midnight. It passed, 116-7 in the House and 38-1 in the Senate.

This story was originally published July 2, 2016 at 2:10 PM with the headline "How Kansas lawmakers came to agree on a plan to keep schools open."