Mark Peterson: More ways for Legislature to block criticism

Sometimes the good people of Kansas and their knights in shining armor do things that “you just couldn’t make up.” The current illustration comes from the Kansas House Committee on Local Government and House Bill 2234.

Introduced by Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, the bill directs the governing bodies of the state’s public community colleges, technical schools, colleges and universities to adopt policies prohibiting their employees from linking their personal names with their employer’s when expressing an opinion in a newspaper column or letter to the editor concerning “a person who currently holds any elected public office in this state, a person who is a candidate for any elected public office in this state or any matter pending before any legislative or public body in this state.”

On the one hand, the thought that my and other professors’ writings have caught the attention of the state’s policymakers is an ego booster. It’s a joy to a writer to know one is being read and thought about, even if the reader’s reaction is hostile to the writer’s point of view.

On the other hand, as citizens and taxpayers in the state of Kansas, I’m surprised – given the fiscal crisis facing the state, the lack of significant population growth and job opportunities, the perilous state of the Ogallala Aquifer, the unmet needs of the state’s medically underserved population – that the Legislature has time and energy to take up yet another enormously important public policy matter like the use of professional credentials in newspaper bylines.

The bill does permit employees to express their political opinions as long as it is without their professional connections. That still leaves a significant risk that the infection of criticism and analysis may spread to others. If we may be so bold, it seems almost mandatory that the supporters add these amendments: Dismantle the information resources (libraries) of the employing institutions and deny these schools the resources to subscribe to periodicals in print and on the Internet.

A general bar on the discussion and spreading of information about public affairs and political actors within our public postsecondary schools also seems essential, and critical to the governor’s cost-cutting efforts.

Perhaps the Legislature could also consider cutting down on the availability of material that attracts our review and criticism. It could continue the practice of “bundling” bills for more rapid, efficient passage. Do everything possible to make sure that as few recorded roll call votes are taken as can be managed. Make the whole legislative process as murky as possible.

Clearly, in this time of so many pressing concerns and problems, knowing the professional affiliations of those who provide comment on policy and public figures is a threat to right-thinking Kansans. Dimming the lights so there is less for the public to see is an important and worthy added measure.

This story was originally published February 13, 2015 at 6:05 PM with the headline "Mark Peterson: More ways for Legislature to block criticism."