Letters on recalling Ranzau, city campaign finance, council pay increase, Halstead police, welfare reform
Bennett’s opinion on recall defies logic
For Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett to split hairs on a distinction between powers and duties to block a constitutional and fundamental right recall petition seems highly irregular, particularly if the duty to contract for the protection and promotion of public health already exists, and is recognized as one of the duties of a County Commission that doubles as the sitting local board of health (“Sedgwick County DA: No grounds to recall commission’s Ranzau,” Nov. 24 Eagle). Is it not pursuant to its power and duty to contract for the protection and promotion of public health and welfare that the commission, through the local health department, meets its ongoing legal obligations under K.S.A. 65-201?
Bennett’s opinion that county commissioners have “no legal duty” to contract for the protection and promotion of the public health and welfare not only defies logic, it is inconsistent with a Kansas Supreme Court case he cites (Unger v. Horn): “If the petition contains sufficient information concerning the alleged violation ..., the electors become the decision-makers and may decide for themselves the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the recall petition. While we might prefer more specific information in the petition in question ..., it contains sufficient information concerning the alleged misconduct.”
Sandrine Lisk, Wichita
Keep campaign rules
I urge Wichita City Council members to vote against amending the city’s code regarding campaign finance (Nov. 25 Eagle).
The current ordinance prohibits political contributions by political committees, corporations, partnerships, trusts, labor unions and business groups. The proposed amendment would remove these restrictions.
In my opinion, this amendment would be a rebuke to our democracy. This is not a partisan issue. It is a loyalty issue: loyalty to our local electorate.
Of all of the issues facing our country in this moment, the right to a fair and just electoral process is one of the most vital and patriotic of all. If we do not protect and encourage the freedom of our citizens to vote and ensure that elected candidates are governing on behalf of their voters and individual citizens, then democracy will be in serious jeopardy.
Innovative localities across the country are implementing protections for their electorate in spite of national rulings that undermine our electoral process. I urge council members to think of their constituency. Their vote against this amendment would be an expression of their support for fairness in at least our local elections and would make a difference.
Alison Scott, Wichita
No pay increase
The Wichita City Council, including the mayor, will be voting on whether to give themselves pay increases of between 8.1 and 10.6 percent. Other perks include paid health insurance, vehicle allowance and cellphone allowance.
Some council members say they can’t raise family on council pay. Well, they knew when they ran for the office that this was considered a part-time position, as far as pay.
There are three options available to pay increases: accept the pay increase and stick it in your pocket, accept the pay increase and donate it to charity, or turn down the pay increase. Which one will each council member do?
In a time when every dollar counts and services are being cut, does it make sense for the City Council members and mayor to vote themselves pay increases?
Carole Campbell, Wichita
Presumed innocent
Given the recent news that the Kansas Bureau of Investigation is investigating the Halstead Police Department (Nov. 25 Eagle), I think it would be a good idea to keep in mind that there is due process, and that here in America we’re still presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Until proved otherwise, the Halstead Police Department and its officers deserve our continued support and respect.
We can hope that the KBI investigation will lay to rest any allegations as false.
Kevin Henderson, Halstead
Antiquated approach
Should the government be in the business of regulating morality?
I was surprised when my research into welfare reform of the 1990s resulted in articles about teen pregnancy and the importance of two-parent families. This reform instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, requiring participation in job training or job “activities” and setting lifetime limits on assistance.
On the Kansas TANF website, two of the stated goals for the program are to decrease out-of-wedlock births and encourage two-parent families. This, to me, seems beyond the reach of the federal or state government. Additionally, states have historically underfunded the required job training activities, and the time limits encouraged recipients to take any job to enter the workforce, with little regard to building skills that would facilitate a long-term career plan.
Though most Americans would agree that the welfare system should discourage dependency and encourage entry into the workforce, these reforms take an antiquated approach, despite being implemented only 20 years ago.
Allison Farres, Derby
Letters to the Editor
Include your full name, home address and phone number for verification purposes. All letters are edited for clarity and length; 200 words or fewer are best. Letters may be published in any format and become the property of The Eagle.
Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Wichita Eagle, 825 E. Douglas, Wichita, KS 67202
E-mail: letters@wichitaeagle.com
Fax: 316-269-6799
For more information, contact
Phillip Brownlee at 316-268-6262, pbrownlee@wichitaeagle.com.
This story was originally published November 30, 2015 at 6:04 PM with the headline "Letters on recalling Ranzau, city campaign finance, council pay increase, Halstead police, welfare reform."