• KNEA Legislative Agenda
• Legislative Issues
• Legislative Week in Review
• School Funding Central
• State Board News
• Take Action Now (LAC)
• Under the Dome Today

April 4, 2007; End of the Regular Session

This week’s links:

What did those conference committees do?

Read any conference committee report brief at the Legislative Research Department website:

Click here for the list of Conference Committee Briefs.

Conference committee briefs are not posted until acted upon.

Read the details of the new KPERS plan for future teachers and state employees

Click here to read the KPERS issue brief on the plan.

Special Note: current employees would not be under this plan! Your plan can only be changed if a change includes a benefit enhancement!

School issues:

Conference Committees Consolidate Concepts

Bills, bills, bills. A veritable plethora of bills faced the House and Senate negotiators as they went to conference over education.

Out there for consideration were:

• HB 2310, bullying
• SB 68, non-proficient at-risk continuation
• SB 143, simplifying the LOB statute
• SB 153, property consolidation in Stafford County
• SB 329, property consolidation in Cherokee County
• SB 69, COLA and declining enrollment hold harmless
• SB 2343, early high school graduation incentive
• SB 384, the early childhood study commission
• HB 2185, in-state tuition if you return to Kansas within five years
• SB 22, grants to universities for teacher education
• SB 23, consolidation of teacher scholarship programs

April 3 & 4, 2007

9:00 a.m. – The Senate 2310 Package

The first conference committee was a pure Education Conference Committee with Representatives Aurand, Horst, and Storm and Senators Schodorf, Vratil, and Lee.

This group considered a Vratil proposal that they create a 2310 package consisting of HB 2310, SB 68, SB 143, SB 153, SB 329, and an amendment by Senator Taddiken to hold school districts that have suffered from disasters harmless on non-proficient at-risk weighting (this was a reaction to Seneca but would apply to any school district).

The House viewed this as all Senate and no House so no agreement was made except on how to amend the character education idea into HB 2310.

1:00 p.m. – The House 2310 Package

Upon returning at 1:00, the House negotiators (minus Clay Aurand) offered their own 2310 package consisting of HB 2310 with the character education language agreed to, the House version of SB 69, SB 143, and HB 2343 with a five year sunset.

After some back and forth the House agreed to a package with HB 2310, SB 68, SB 143, and the “Seneca amendment.”

Within this context, there were rumors circulating that House Leadership had removed Rep. Aurand from the conference committee. Some speculated that Aurand had been removed from a conference committee on SB 68 and replaced by Majority Leader Ray Merrick.

Since Aurand was not present for the conference committee there arose the question as to whether or not the report could even be drafted. As it is said, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” So also, “If the chairman was not there, was there a committee meeting?” And if not, can a report be written?

2:00 p.m. – The Post-Secondary Conference Committee

Adding to the intrigue of the Education Conference Committee was the Ways and Means/Education Conference Committee meeting on HB 2185. This conference committee made up of Senators from Ways and Means (Umbarger, Emler, and Kelly) and Representatives from Education (Aurand, Horst, and Storm) was set to meet at 2:00.

At issue was HB 2185 allowing in-state tuition for former Kansans who return to the state within five years. The Senators proposed amending SB 24 (amending the medical student loan act increasing a stipend to $2000), SB 25 (the nurse educator scholarship act), SB 22 (competitive grants for universities expanding teacher preparation programs), and SB 23 (consolidating educator scholarship programs).

Any problems? The House members were not there for the conference committee meeting! It seems that nothing in this bill was particularly controversial so the report was ultimately written.

4:00 p.m. – The JoCo Conference Committee?

It just got weirder.

At 4:00 the Senate Education Conferees met with what can only be described as the House Johnson County conferees (Ray Merrick, Sheryl Spalding, and Sue Storm) to discuss Senate Bill 23. It was decided that since the contents of SB 23 (teacher scholarships) had been rolled into HB 2185 by the 2:00 conference committee (see above), SB 23 could be gutted and have some other idea put into it.

Senator Vratil suggested putting in an increase in the LOB to 32% subject to protest petition and election. This also exists as a proviso in the budget conference committee report. Not surprisingly the House members were okay with this. They discussed what to do about the mandatory election to move from 30% to 31%. In the end, the conference committee report was drafted to eliminate the mandatory election

At the same time, yet another version of the conference committee – this one made up of Senate education conferees plus Representatives Merrick, Horst, and Storm – had been meeting to hash out Senate Bill 68. This group decided to draft a report that includes the extension of non-proficient at-risk funding (SB 68), the simplified LOB language (SB 143), the bullying bill with the modified character education language (HB 2310, amended), and the Taddiken amendment on non-proficient at risk hold harmless in school districts suffering from disasters (the Seneca amendment).

You’ll probably notice that this version of SB 68 is exactly the same as the earlier version of HB 2310 worked by a different education conference committee at 1:00 (see above). Since HB 2310 was wrapped up in the intrigue of the removal of Rep. Aurand from the conference committee, the new conferees had to do the same thing in a different way. SB 68 is the result.

But all those reports…still in limbo

So, with all of this, there are now three conference committee reports to be debated and adopted or rejected:

• CCRB HB 2185 State Resident Tuition Requirements
• CCRB SB 23 LOB
• CCRB SB 68 Non-proficient at-risk, et. al.

Normally, when conference committee reports are written, they are sent to the chambers for adoption. But in the case of these three, that was not what happened.

Both chambers adjourned between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. without taking action.

So there the reports sit – in limbo – until the legislature returns for the veto session on April 25.

Most critical unresolved issue – the mandatory LOB election

What started out as a no-brainer has ended up mired in debate and controversy.

A glitch in the school finance formula relative to the Cost of Living Weighting had been proposed to be fixed very early in the session. Here’s how it goes:

In order to access the COLA, a district must be at the maximum LOB (30% this year, 31% next year). Both the COLA and the LOB are subject to protest petition and election. But moving to 31% LOB requires a mandatory election. This means that a school district that was at 30%, got the COLA without a protest petition, will have to go to 32% LOB next year and must hold an election. If the election fails, the district will lose not just the additional LOB but the COLA money already being levied and used.

KNEA along with most other education lobbyists supported the elimination of the mandatory election or, at the very least, grandfathering in the three districts that have the COLA.

Senate Bill 69, known as the “Lawrence fix,” would have solved the problem by reducing the LOB requirement from the maximum to 25%. The House amended it to simply grandfather in those already with the COLA but still require the maximum LOB for those wishing to access it in the future.

Senate negotiators dug in as did the House. As a result SB 69 has stalled and is now dead.

The fix now is in the conference committee report on SB 23 which eliminates the mandatory election but also increases the LOB to 32%.

Will this pass? It’s iffy. The Senate earlier in the session rejected a bill to eliminate the mandatory election on a vote of 15-25. In addition, the increase in LOB has many opponents in both chambers.

This is the report to watch on April 25.

Higher Ed Issues:

Conference Committee Confirms Continuing Commission

About midnight last night a conference committee began meeting to discuss the two tech college bills. HB 2014 extends the life of the Technical College and Vocational Education Commission while HB 2556 creates the Technical Education Authority under the Board of Regents.

This committee was made up of mostly education committee members with two differences. Instead of Rep. Sue Storm, the House appointed Rep. Ann Mah to work with Clay Aurand and Deena Horst. On the Senate side, instead of Sen. John Vratil, the Senate appointed Sen. Ruth Teichman to work with Jean Schodorf and Janis Lee.

In HB 2014 the Senate had added 2 people – one from the community college trustees and another who must be a resident of Douglas, Johnson, Leavenworth, or Wyandotte County to give a northeast Kansas presence to the Commission. These changes generated little discussion.

HB 2556 was a bit more complex.

Both sides agreed on clarifying language for the implementation of the Authority’s decisions.

The Senate had expanded membership to 12 from 9 and had five of them appointed by the Governor. The House prefered to have the four legislative leaders (Senate President and Minority Leader; Speaker of the House and Minority Leader) make those appointments. In the end they gave three appointees to the Governor, one to the Senate President and one to the Speaker of the House.

There was also some significant discussion about the role of the Kansas Association of Community College Trustees and Kansas Association of Technical Schools and Colleges. These discussions ranged from the appointment of their own representatives to the Authority to their role in the selection of an Executive Director.

The two bills were put into HB 2556.

But that report…still in limbo

Yes, just like the other education conference committee reports, this one was not acted on last night.

Look for action on April 25.

KPERS Issues:

Returning Retirees Retain Reduced Respect

Last year the Legislature stripped retired teachers who return to work from the definition of “professional employee” thereby stripping them of any salary, benefit or working condition guarantees.

KNEA, working with Rep. Geraldine Flaharty (D-Wichita), tried to get this action reversed this year. Flaharty offered an amendment in the KPERS Select Committee and again on the House floor that would have put these professionals back in the definition. Both attempts failed. Rep. Bill Feuerborn (D-Garnett) tried the amendment in the House Appropriations KPERS Subcommittee but it was not approved there either.  

Flaharty offered the amendment on the floor as the House debated SB 362, the second tier KPERS benefit structure for new employees. After Flaharty rose to offer her amendment she was followed by Bill Otto (R-Leroy) and John Grange (R-El Dorado) who argued it was good to keep these teachers out of the definition and Ann Mah (D-Topeka), Annie Tietze (D-Topeka) and Dale Swenson (R-Wichita) who argued for fair treatment of teachers and bargaining rights.

On a requested roll call vote, the amendment failed 49-70. Five Republicans joined 44 Democrats in supporting teachers while only one Democrat voted against the amendment.

The five Republicans who supported teachers on the vote were Rocky Fund (Hoyt), Don Hill (Emporia ), Deena Horst (Salina ), Tim Owens (Overland Park ), and Dale Swenson (Wichita ).

The lone Democrat to vote against restoring these teachers to the definition of professional employee was Tom Hawk (Manhattan ).

Democrat Cindy Neighbor (Shawnee ) did not vote; Democrat Marti Crow (Leavenworth ) was absent.

This maintains the loophole in the law that allows only school districts to pass the KPERS rates on to retired employees who return to work. While the law says the employer shall make the KPERS contribution, school districts can pass that on to the employee through reduced salary or benefits.

Passage of the Flaharty amendment would have restored professional status to these retired professionals and had no cost to the state.

Semi-COLA reduced, passed

The House, you’ll recall, attached what can only be described as a “semi-COLA” to SB 362, sending the bill to conference.

The amendment by Rep. Harold Lane (D-Topeka) would provide a one time $500 payment to KPERS retirees who have 10 years of service credit and have been retired for 10 or more years. Payment for this “COLA” would come right from KPERS in 2007 with a requirement that the state pay it back in 2008.

In conference, Senate negotiators were put in a difficult bind. How does one advocate the elimination of any COLA for retirees? But the Senators were worried about the $12 million the state would have to repay in 2008.

As a compromise, Senate negotiators reduced the COLA to $300 with a promise to reconsider the additional $200 in the veto session after the next revenue estimates. The House agreed and a conference committee report was written.

Two-tiered system gets overwhelming approval

With the COLA issue resolved, SB 362 went back to both chambers for adoption.

The House approved the bill on a vote of 116 – 3; the Senate said “yes” 37 – 3. The bill now goes to the Governor for her signature.

Click here to read the KPERS document comparing the two benefit plans.

Gamble Goofs! Guys and Gals Go Ga-Ga over Gaming!

“Barnett found out that a blackjack table isn’t the only place where you take it in the shorts if the opposition draws 21.”  Ric Anderson in the Topeka Capital Journal

March 28, 2007; a day that will live in Kansas  history!

That morning the Senate had handled a few sports team resolutions and then, about 10:45 took up SB 66 – the expanded gaming bill. Senator John Vratil moved to concur in the House amendments and Senator Pete Brungardt immediately offered a substitute motion to non-concur and form a conference committee. This was a planned procedural movement to make sure the bill got into a conference committee.

After much contentious debate, the motion to non-concur passed but Senator Jim Barnett – an ardent gambling opponent – made a subsequent motion to concur. It seems that the bill would not be in conference until the House got the notice of the Senate action and acceded to the request for a conference committee. Because of this, gaming proponents immediately launched a filibuster to keep the vote from happening before the House took action.

It certainly appeared at that time that there were not enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill out. At least that’s the impression one got from the initial maneuver.

While the Senate filibuster was intended to stall a vote on the Barnett motion to concur until the House acted, House leadership appeared to be sitting put waiting until the Senate gave up.

Senator Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) held the floor for over three hours at one point telling her colleagues that as a child she had won an endurance contest proving she was the girl who could stand the longest with her arms outstretched.

The high point of the filibuster was probably when Senator David Wysong (R-Mission Hills) read the rules of blackjack, Texas hold-em, and craps!

Sounding exhausted after over 12 continuous hours, the gaming filibuster came to an end at 11:15 p.m. when Senator David Wysong (R-Mission Hills) was told by his fellow gaming proponents to halt his reading of gambling statutes.

Through the long night we heard studies on gambling, listened to scientific treatises on evolution, seals and polygamy, and even got what sounded like a chamber of commerce Las Vegas promotional brochure read. It was an experience not soon to be forgotten.

When Senator Wysong stopped, the filibuster was over and Senator Jim Barnett (R-Emporia) closed on his motion to concur in the House amendments to SB 66.

A roll call vote was called for and the preliminary count came to 21 in favor, 16 against with three senators absent. A “call of the Senate” was then imposed. The doors were closed, Senators were told to get in their seats, and a search went out for the three missing lawmakers – Senators Les Donovan (R-Wichita), Karin Brownlee (R-Olathe), and Nick Jordan (R-Shawnee).

Under a call of the Senate, no lawmaker may leave the floor until the missing Senators are located and return to cast their votes. The time during a call is often used to pressure the other lawmakers who are considered swing votes to change one way or the other. This is a more common practice in the House.

With the Senate poised to concur in the House amendments to SB 66 and a call of the Senate in place, Senator Jim Barnett (R-Emporia) asked to withdraw his motion to concur.

Senate President Steve Morris (R-Hugoton) did not immediately rule and was cited a Senate rule that Senator Phil Journey (R-Wichita) believed would allow Barnett to withdraw the motion at that time.

Upon further study of the rules, Majority Leader Derek Schmidt (R-Independence) read the Senate rule and indicated that it was not clear on the issue. He also stated that when the Senate rules were vague, the Senate was directed to turn to Robert’s Rules of Order. Citing Robert’s Rules, Schmidt told the body that once the motion has been read and voting begun, it no longer belongs to the maker of the motion but to the body and the entire body would have to agree to withdraw the motion.

Journey accepted the Majority Leader’s analysis and the vote was finished.

At that time, Senator Hensley moved to reconsider the action. This is another procedural motion. The intent is to have supporters vote NO on reconsideration of the previous vote. Doing this means that the issue is over for certain and could not be reconsidered again.

Senator Susan Wagle (R-Wichita) rose to say that Speaker Neufeld had called while the vote was being taken in the Senate, and that the House had acceded to the original Senate vote to send the bill to conference. Stating that a motion to concur was always in order, President Morris indicated that the action of the House, taken when it was, was irrelevant.

Senator Tim Huelskamp (R-Meade) moved to postpone the vote on reconsideration indefinitely. Huelskamp’s motion was defeated.

Hensley’s motion to reconsider was then defeated on a voice vote.

With the Senate voting to concur in the House amendments to the SB 66 on a vote of 21 to 19, the bill now goes to the Governor who is expected to sign it into law.

An end to one of the most contentious issues in legislative history

This vote removed one of the most divisive issues of the last few years. Expanded gaming has been a major topic of concern for a number of years and generated much heated debate. Proponents cite the revenue benefit to the state that destination casinos and slots will generate and express concern that Kansans are already taking the gambling money across the borders into Oklahoma and Missouri. Opponents cite the problems of gambling addiction and its impact on individuals and families. They question whether the additional revenue is worth the social cost.

Perhaps the outcome would have been different if House Speaker Melvin Neufeld had acted to bring a motion to accede and put the bill in conference committee. Neufeld, who is an opponent of expanded gaming, first saw his chamber take this issue up on the floor over his opposition. When he had the chance to get the bill in conference and perhaps change it, he instead bottled it up in his office and let the Senate filibuster continue. In the end, Neufeld’s gamble backfired when the bill was passed in the Senate.

This is a good example of what happens when you are too confident about your votes. Had the anti-gaming forces chosen to accept putting the bill in conference they would have had the opportunity to change it. Instead, gaming opponents were confident they could defeat the bill outright and it was the opponents in the Senate who offered the amendment to concur. The opponents in the House, agreeing with their compatriots in the Senate, held up the consideration of whether or not to accede to the Senate. As a result, the bill was passed exactly as crafted in the House.

It is a very difficult subject and all Kansas legislators are to be praised for their commitment to both sides of this issue and their passion for the future of our great state.  

Your bill tracker

Bills passed…

SB 109 allowing school districts to pay employees at the first regularly scheduled pay date even if that is before September, passed both chambers and now awaits the Governor’s signature.

SB 129 is an adjustment in the school safety and security act to give districts and law enforcement more reasonable time limits and protect the rights of students. It overwhelmingly passed both chambers and now awaits the Governor’s signature.

SB 144 which extends the statewide 20 mill property tax levy for schools for another two years was rolled into a tax conference committee report on HB 2044 and adopted by both chambers.

Bills in limbo…

HB 2310, requiring schools to have policies on bullying and programs to implement those policies, passed both chambers and went to a conference committee. An amended version is in the SB 68 Conference Committee Report which will be voted on in the veto session.

HB 2185 which would allow Kansans who have left the state to return within five years and qualify for in-state tuition was amended in the Senate before being passed. It now awaits review by a House/Senate conference committee.

Bills dead…for this year

SB 69 which would allow districts to use the declining enrollment and cost of living local property taxes if they have an LOB of at least 25%. Current law requires the maximum LOB. The House amended it to simply grandfather in the districts using these weightings. The Senate negotiators dug in and the bill has not survived the conference committee process. It now depends on the passage of the conference committee report on SB 23 which will remove the mandatory election entirely.  

HB 2343, the early graduation incentive program for students going into the construction trades appears dead. Senate education negotiators would not agree to put it into any conference committee report and it has only passed one chamber.

HB 2140, declaring English to be the official language of the state but allowing schools and other units of government to continue to serve the public in other languages, passed both chambers but withered in a conference committee. Both sides dug in over the appropriation of money for ESOL classes. Count this one dead for this year

HB 2367, the anti-illegal alien bill. KNEA and KASB submitted joint testimony in opposition to this bill along with the Kansas Board of Regents, Olathe Public Schools, Kansas Methodist Women, and the Kansas Catholic Conference. The bill would not simply strip the children of undocumented workers of in-state tuition rates but would effectively ban them from even attending a Regents Institution.

The bill was referred back to the House Judiciary Committee for further study where it will wither away for this session.  

KNEA Legislative Contacts

Blake West, President
Mark Desetti, Director, Legislative and Political Advocacy
Terry Forsyth, Director, Political Action

The KNEA Lobby Team consists of elected leaders and staff. The Lobby Team welcomes member feedback on issues before the Legislature and on this site.