May 11, 2006

 NOTE: The commission has one vacancy, because House Speaker Doug Mays has not appointed someone.

This statement seems to blame Speaker Mays, who is ending his career as House Speaker, for not taking action.  The names of the current Commissioners can also be viewed on the Ethics Commission web page, which shows a "vacant position" to be appointed by the Speaker of the House.  Neither the Wichita Eagle  nor the Ethics Commission web site explains why Speaker Mays currently has no appointee on the Ethics Commission.  This same page shows the recent appointment of former Senate Majority Leader Tim Emert to the Ethics Commission in January 2006 by current Senate President Steve Morris.  (Morris is also embroiled in the incident of trying to influence Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss over the school finance case.)

On May 2, 2006 Carol Williams, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, provided this answer about Mays' appointment in response to my E-mail:

The Commission, on two occasions, received the same nominee from Speaker Mays. ... The only person Speaker Mays' wanted appointed to the Commission could not be accepted because his appointee was a Republican.  K.S.A. 25-4119a states "Not more than five members of the Commission shall be members of the same political party". 

Where does KSA 25-4119a say this restriction ONLY applies to the nominee of the Speaker of the House? 

If Speaker Mays’ appointment has been open since January 31, 2003, and vacant since the summer of 2005, why was his Republican appointment still blocked by the “5-members of the same party rule”, instead of the appointment by the Senate President in January 2006? Why was the Senate President given priority over the Speaker of the House? Shouldn’t the one waiting the longest for an appointment be allowed to make the next selection when a term expires? Shouldn’t the Senate President take his turn in waiting for his Republican appointment instead delaying the Republican appointment by Speaker Mays?

An explanation that KSA 4119a is blocking Mays appointment should be made on the Ethics Commission web site.  Why doesn't the Ethics Commission web page explain why Mays' Republican nominee was NOT acceptable but the Senate President's Republican appointment and Republican contributor to Democrat Katheleen Sebelius WAS acceptable. Why is the Ethics Commission now silent on the timing and fairness of the appointments by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President?

What is known about Tim Emert, who was appointed in January 2006 to the Kansas Ethics Commission?

In December 2005 the Lawrence Journal-World reported GOP group pledges to disempower far right:

Members of the KTRM board include, among others, former Lt. Gov. Gary Sherrer, former Senate President Dick Bond, former Senate Majority Leader Tim Emert, former state Sen. Mark Buhler, of Lawrence, former State GOP Chairman Dennis Jones, former U.S. Rep. Jan Meyers and Bruce Ney, also of Lawrence.  (Dec 8, 2005)

A KS Meadowlark article published that same day gave a  Political Profile of Members of "Kansas Traditional Republican Majority", including the following information about Emert:

• $1000 contributor to Democrat Paul Morrison for Attorney General  in 2005 and $100 to Democrat Chris Biggs for Attorney General in 2002
• $500 contributor to Democrat Kathleen Sebelius in 2005 and $250 to Sebelius in 2002
• Supported Democrat Kathleen Sebelius for Governor
• Democrat Sebelius appointed Emert to BEST (Budget Efficiency Savings Team) [2002]

Allowing a highly-partisan, Republican Emert to block Speaker May’s nomination of a Republican to the Ethics Commission simply is not fair and should be addressed by the Ethics Board, if not the Kansas legislature. To many conservative Republicans this appears like a coup by the moderate Republicans to get one of “their” folks on the Board AND block any conservative from being on the Board at the same time. Most conservative Republicans will not trust the highly-partisan Emert, especially since as a "Republican" he was quite politically active against Republicans in 2002 with his vocal support of Democrat Sebelius —and then Emert was rewarded by Sebelius by being appointed to her Education Policy Team?.

Oddly, within days of being appointed to the Ethics Commission, Emert appears to have violated Kansas law when his name appeared in the letterhead of a political solicitation mailing for the same "moderate" group that wants to disempower conservatives in Kansas.   

Carol Williams from the Ethics Commission provided this response about this matter:

Commissioner Emert resigned from the board of this PAC on January 24, 2006. He was appointed to serve on the Commission on January 31, 2006. I have no idea why the PACs stationary still contained the name of Commissioner Emert when they did a mailing.

This KTRM mailing, with Emert's name in the letterhead, seems to violate KSA 25-4119d:

While serving on the commission created by K.S.A. 25-4119a, and amendments thereto, no member shall:

(1) Be an individual subject to the provisions of the campaign finance law or the provisions of K.S.A. 46-215 

3) actively solicit contributions subject to the provisions of the campaign finance act;

This question sent by E-mail to Carol Williams has not been answered:

Is this E-mail report sufficient for you to investigate this matter, or do I need to file some sort of formal complaint about this?

Is the Ethics Commission being ethical and fair about how it's treating nominees by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President?  Shouldn't the Ethics Commission take some action against their own members when they violate Kansas Law? But at this moment, the published agenda for the May 17th meeting of the Governmental Ethics Commission doesn't list any item to discuss either of these matters.

Related KS Meadowlark Report:  

• General Counsel for KS Governmental Ethics Commission Contributes to Controversial PAC

K a n s a s M e a d o w l a r k @ e f g 2 . c o m